News Deceptive Japanese Whaling Season Begins

[Mech_Engineer]

Dolphins (and chimps, and bonobos) are much smarter than pigs, though.

Even if this is true (please feel free to provide evidence of this fact, I'm suspicious of this claim), so what?

(It's not obvious that this makes it wrong to hunt them, but it does make the argument plausible.)

No it doesn't, intelligence does not imply a moral, ethical, or fundamental responsibility to not hunt something. Is it morally wrong for a lion to hunt a man (or a baboon, or chimp, or dolphin) because the prey is considered to be much smarter?

 

[_Tully]

Is it morally wrong for a lion to hunt a man (or a baboon, or chimp, or dolphin) because the prey is considered to be much smarter?

This is an excellent, to the point, ethics question. I've never taken an ethics course, is this addressed? I'd love to read the opinions of people much more intelligent than I.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

This is an excellent, to the point, ethics question. I've never taken an ethics course, is this addressed? I'd love to read the opinions of people much more intelligent than I.

One of the most important things learned in an ethics class is that ethical beliefs are individual beliefs. Not all cultures share the same ethical beliefs, and there isn't a universal ethical code all people live by.

A common assumption being made in this thread for example, is that hunting and eating cetaceans is wrong for whatever reason; of course, the Japanese do not feel this way.

 

[Proton Soup]

The Inuit population in the whole of Canada is around 50,000. The Japanese population is over 120 million. 2500 times the inuit population. Number of whales? decreasing.

i'm not saying all japanese should be able to eat whale. I'm saying there is a certain number that could be hunted. that number might be very low, even zero for certain species, at least until they recover from overharvesting. but they can be managed like any other food we harvest from the seas.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Why not just treat whales as we do fish?

Our appetite for fish is wreaking havoc on aquatic populations worldwide. The conservation group World Wildlife Fund predicts that if cod fisheries continue to be fished at current rates, there will be no cod left by 2022. "Seventy-five percent of fisheries are overfished," says marine biologist Enric Sala. "If nothing changes, all fisheries will have collapsed by 2050." The solution, says Sala—a National Geographic Society fellow—is involving all levels of society, from consumers to policy makers. "The solutions exist, we just need the political will to implement them at [a] large scale," he adds...

http://ocean.nationalgeographic.com/ocean/photos/oceans-overfishing/#

 

[Mech_Engineer]

Why not just treat whales as we do fish?

http://ocean.nationalgeographic.com/ocean/photos/oceans-overfishing/#

I think it makes sense that we can for "smaller" breeds of whales that could possibly be raised in open-water fisheries (whaleries?) like they are starting to do with large in-demand fish breeds like Tuna. Still, as long as sustainable hunting methods are practiced there should be no problem with some wild hunting as well...

 

[mugaliens]

thank you Captain Obvious

When you make comments like "...just treat it like any other fishing," you're apparently in need of reminders to the contrary.

 

[Proton Soup]

When you make comments like "...just treat it like any other fishing," you're apparently in need of reminders to the contrary.

whaling may be the preferred term, but http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fishing" is sufficiently broad, not always referring specifically to fish. also, i suspect most readers have the insight to realize the implication i was making: that i have no moral judgment against the practice just because it involves large mammals.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

Well Sea Shephard is at it again...

Japanese whalers have faced a fresh attack by militant activists from the international organisation Sea Shepherd during an Antarctic mission, a Japanese whaling body said Wednesday.

Anti-whaling campaigners aboard the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society's "Gojira" speedboat threw glass battles at the Yushin Maru-2 and threw ropes aimed at its propeller, said the Institute of Cetacean Research, which organises Japan's whaling mission.

The Japanese ship issued warnings to the activists' boat and none of the Japanese whalers were hurt, the institute said.

The institute condemned the actions of the campaigners and reiterated that the Japanese whaling mission is legal.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gIzIzrV1Rh_566ewsfvN1wXkIx4g?docId=CNG.7f52d5080666c6faeec68359512796af.3f1


Interesting article from The Australian: against whaling is political opportunism
[/url]

WikiLeaks cables reported this week underline the political opportunism at play. The Howard government resisted taking action against Japan through the International Court of Justice because it was futile. Now, cables reveal the Rudd government was advised of this futility but proceeded regardless to relieve political pressure.

 

[dreiter]

You know, people could just stop eating whales. Problem solved! I don't understand why some taste buds have to cause this much trouble.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

You know, people could just stop eating whales. Problem solved! I don't understand why some taste buds have to cause this much trouble.

"People" could just as easily stop trying to stop other people from eating whales based on their personal feelings

 

[dreiter]

"People" could just as easily stop trying to stop other people from eating whales based on their personal feelings

Hmm, more like "based on hard science" but whatever you want to believe is fine...

 

[drankin]

You know, people could just stop eating whales. Problem solved! I don't understand why some taste buds have to cause this much trouble.

Yeppers, people could stop eating whales. Actuall stopping them is a problem you haven't solved.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

Hmm, more like "based on hard science" but whatever you want to believe is fine...

I have yet to see any hard science in this thread that proves the Japanese are driving any species of whales to extinction. It's all been "I think," "I feel," and "everyone knows."

Feel free to post the "hard science" that shows Japanese whaling is causing the extinction of a specific species...

 

[russ_watters]

Whether extinction of a whale species is an important issue is also a matter of opinion...

 

[dreiter]

Oh it has nothing to do with extinction, just subverting the greater good of the planet for someone's tastebuds.

 

[russ_watters]

What does "greater good of the planet" mean?

 

[DaveC426913]

A common assumption being made in this thread for example, is that hunting and eating cetaceans is wrong for whatever reason; of course, the Japanese do not feel this way.

A purely practical reason for not eating them to excess is that they are predators - top of the food chain. Prey tends to far outnumber predators in most environments. You might take a thousand prey from an area without having any appreciable effect on the ecosystem, but you could take one predator and unbalance the whole thing.

This is compounded because predators, often having just one or two offspring at a time, do not replace their numbers nearly as readily as prey animals, who might produce hundreds, thousands or millions.

When you make comments like "...just treat it like any other fishing," you're apparently in need of reminders to the contrary.

The term "fishing" does not have to apply only to fish. Don't assume because he used the term, it means he doesn't know what whales are.

What does "greater good of the planet" mean?

We know that we cannot control the ecosystems of the planet; we're going to have to ensure they can manage on their own as much as possible, lest the whole food chain deck of cards comes crashing down. For that reason, the best philosophy is to try to disrupt it as little as possible. Extinction is likely to have far-reaching deleterious effects - not just on the planet in general, but upon us directly.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

A purely practical reason for not eating them to excess is that they are predators - top of the food chain.

Unless you count humans... are we not part of the food chain?

Predators tend to far outnumber prey in most environments.

I think you mean the opposite of this based on your next sentence.

You might take a thousand prey from an area withuot having any appreciable effect on the ecosystem, but you could take one predator and unbalance the whole thing.

This is compounded because predators, often having just one or two offspring at a time, do not replace their numbers nearly as readily as prey animals, who might produce hundreds, thousands or millions.

None of this means it is not possible to maintain a stable hunting practice for them. You have a moral/ethical system which is against eating whales for whatever reason; the Japanese do not share this belief system. Who's right?

We know that we cannot control the ecosystems of the planet; we're going to have to ensure they can manage on their own as much as possible, lest the whole food chain deck of cards comes crashing down. For that reason, the best philosophy is to try to disrupt it as little as possible. Extinction is likely to have far-reaching deleterious effects - not just on the planet in general, but upon us directly.

We're back to the same fallacious assumption- hunting will inevitably cause extinction. Sustainable hunting practices are possible, and farming certain breeds of whale is probably possible as well (although not done right now AFAIK).

 

[russ_watters]

We know that we cannot control the ecosystems of the planet...

Well that's clearly not true: if environmentalists want to claim we can "destroy" an ecosystem then they must acknowledge that we most certainly can control it! That's the ultimate control!

And stepping back from that obvoius logic, it isn't difficult to see that most of our interactions with the natural world are about exerting control over it. Ie:

...we're going to have to ensure they can manage on their own as much as possible, lest the whole food chain deck of cards comes crashing down. For that reason, the best philosophy is to try to disrupt it as little as possible.

That's unrealistic. Humans have a huge impact on the ecosystem and it is impossible to get around that. So we need to manage (control) what that effect is. In some cases, that means accepting wiping-out entire ecosystems over hundreds of square miles because we have located cities there. In other cases, it means completely changing the ecosystem of millions of square miles to turn it into farmland. We're re-making the ecosystems of the world to meet our needs.

We've had an enormous impact on our natural world, but it still services us just fine. We're not anywhere close to turning the Earth into a lifeless brown rock. Suggesting we are headed in that direction with our eating practices is just chicken-littleism. There are only two possible ways I know of we could do that: nuclear war and a runaway greenhouse effect.

Extinction is likely to have far-reaching deleterious effects - not just on the planet in general, but upon us directly.

Lots of species become extinct, whether because of humans or not. They may or may not have harmful effects on natural ecosystems or the needs of humans. So what I'm saying is that we need to manage (control) our impact on our environment not just to avoid deleterious effects but to go a step further and re-make the natural world to service us. And I know those words will make some vomit on their keyboards, but people can't be naive about this. Being able to manipulate our environment like no other animal can is a big part of what makes us different from other animals and what has allowed us to become what we are today. It's not a flaw in humanity, but an attribute that has played a huge role in enabling our current state of development.

I'm not completely devoid of sentiment - I liked Yosemite and I've been whale watching and that's really cool too. But I've seen little from most environmentalists that implies that their cause has much basis beyond sentimentality/emotion. Certainly, these whale-wars guys are driven by emotion over logic. I'd respect the cause more if they'd just acknowledge it. If I had to vote tomorrow on whether to keep Yosemite around, I'd say yes - but I'd do it because I think it is pretty, not because I think it really matters if we turn it into a million square miles of blacktop.

Whales are pretty/magestic. Is that a good enough reason not to make them extinct? Ehh, maybe. But the Hindus also think cows are sacred and we disagree so we eat them. I'm not inclined to tell the Japanese that they can't eat a whale (or sell its oil or whatever) because I think they are pretty. It's just not a good enough reason.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

Oh it has nothing to do with extinction, just subverting the greater good of the planet for someone's tastebuds.

So it's about hard science until I ask you to present the science, and then it's about the "greater good of the planet"? A claim based in personal feeling and individual interpretation if I'm not mistaken.

 

[DaveC426913]

Unless you count humans... are we not part of the food chain?

It's not about being at the top; it's about being in the top.

I think you mean the opposite of this based on your next sentence.

Thanks. Fixed.

None of this means it is not possible to maintain a stable hunting practice for them. You have a moral/ethical system which is against eating whales for whatever reason; the Japanese do not share this belief system. Who's right?

I'm not talking ethics. I'm talking practicality.

Sustainable hunting practices works great for me.

We're back to the same fallacious assumption- hunting will inevitably cause extinction. Sustainable hunting practices are possible, and farming certain breeds of whale is probably possible as well (although not done right now AFAIK).

Unless I'm out of the loop; hunting is currently leading to extinction unless we do something. Even for whales that are not endangered, the predator argument shows why it is quite a risk that it will.

Again, sustainable hunting works great for me.

 

[DaveC426913]

Well that's clearly not true: if environmentalists want to claim we can "destroy" an ecosystem then we most certainly can control it!

And stepping back from that obvoius logic, it isn't difficult to see that most of our interactions with the natural world are about exerting control over it. Ie: That's unrealistic. Humans have a huge impact on the ecosystem and it is impossible to get around that. So we need to manage (control) what that effect is. In some cases, that means accepting wiping-out entire ecosystems over hundreds of square miles because we have located cities there. In other cases, it means completely changing the ecosystem of millions of square miles to turn it into farmland. We're re-making the ecosystems of the world to meet our needs. Lots of species become extinct, whether because of humans or not. They may or may not have harmful effects on natural ecosystems or the needs of humans. So what I'm saying is that we need to manage (control) our impact on our environment not just to avoid deleterious effects but to go a step further and re-make the natural world to service us. And I know those words will make some vomit on their keyboards, but people can't be naive about this. Being able to manipulate our environment like no other animal can is a big part of what makes us different from other animals and what has allowed us to become what we are today. It's not a flaw in humanity, but an attribute that has played a huge role in enabling our current state of development.

I am in agreement with you on all this. And I know how contentious a stance it is.

My sister is a biologist, and she has taught me the wisdom of sheparding our planet, including managing it to suit our needs. It is naive to think that it is possible anymore to "let nature be".

We save the whales from extinction because we choose to have them around, not because they have rights.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

Unless I'm out of the loop; hunting is currently leading to extinction unless we do something. Even for whales that are not endangered, the predator argument shows why it is quite a risk that it will.

So you're under the impression that you're "in the loop"- good. Maybe you can present some scientific evidence that Japanese whaling is currently leading to the extinction of a species of whale that they hunt.

Again, sustainable hunting works great for me.

Me too. Now tell that to the militant "environmentalists" that are attacking Japanese whaling vessels.

 

[DaveC426913]

So you're under the impression that you're "in the loop"- good. Maybe you can present some scientific evidence that Japanese whaling is currently leading to the extinction of a species of whale that they hunt.

It's not whether they are or not; it's whether they are violating laws designed to prevent overhunting.

Me too. Now tell that to the militant "environmentalists" that are attacking Japanese wlaing vessels.

Is it? Sustainable, I mean.

I don't see how it can be determined to be sustainable if it is not being supervised and enforced.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

It's not whether they are or not; it's whether they are violating laws designed to prevent overhunting.

From what I understand, they're out there whaling under a loophole in the treaty which allows gathering for "scientific research." A little devious, but not illegal AFAIK.

Is it? Sustainable, I mean.

It is at least in theory. 1 whale a year for the whole year definitely sustainable. 100 whales- probably. 1000 whales- maybe. 10,000 whales- probably not (but might depend on species). There's an optimum somewhere there, it would have to be done based on population studies.

I don't see how it can be determined to be sustainable if it is not being supervised and enforced.

It would take knowing how many whales are being taken, and population studies of the region. Problem is, such a structure doesn't exist because so much of the west finds eating whales taboo due to incessant propaganda on the topic from militant environmentalists.

I'm personally pretty neutral on the matter, although I do think the Japanese should have the right to whale if they want to, at least in some sustainable form.

 

[DaveC426913]

From what I understand, they're out there whaling under a loophole in the treaty which allows gathering for "scientific research." A little devious, but not illegal AFAIK.



It is at least in theory. 1 whale a year for the whole year definitely sustainable. 100 whales- probably. 1000 whales- maybe. 10,000 whales- probably not (but might depend on species). There's an optimum somewhere there, it would have to be done based on population studies.



It would take knowing how many whales are being taken, and population studies of the region. Problem is, such a structure doesn't exist because so much of the west finds eating whales taboo due to incessant propaganda on the topic from militant environmentalists.

I'm personally pretty neutral on the matter, although I do think the Japanese should have the right to whale if they want to, at least in some sustainable form.

I am quite confused by your stance,. It sounds like you believe that, if we see an infraction that might have dangerous consequences, we should err of the side of not enforcing the spirit of the laws until we are sure.

It seems like you're saying police should not ticket a particular speeder until they can demonstrate that he has killed someone.

 

[ThomasT]

It appears, from a cursory 10-minute search, that humpback, fin and minke whales (that have been explicitly mentioned in this thread as being targeted by Japanese whalers) populations are ok (ie., the species' survival isn't immediately threatened) assuming current trends and restrictions. I looked up blue whales because they're the biggest. It isn't clear to me if anybody is targeting blue whales, but their numbers seem inordinately low. Sperm, or, interestingly, Moby Dick whales seem to be doing ok.

While it does seem to be the case that the Japanese are trying to be somewhat deceptive wrt their whaling practices, I want to suppose that they're on top of things enough that they're not going to hunt any particular (or, at least not all) species to extinction.

Is hunting any particular whale species to extinction that important? It seems like it might be, or should be, but I don't know what criteria might be used, other than decidedly emotional ones, to ascertain whether it is or not. For example, how does the oceanic ecosystem affect our survival, and how important are whales to that ecosystem? My guess is, not that important. Just like the survival, or not, of, say, Milwaukee, isn't THAT important. But, for some reason, I find the mere prospect of it quite alarming.

Why are the Japanese being deceptive about their whale hunting? Because there are international restrictions, and at least some oversight and enforcement regarding those restrictions, and because there's a lot of money to be made from hunting whales.

The numbers suggest that, with no restrictions in place, perhaps right whales and blue whales could/would be hunted to extinction in the foreseeable future. Wrt to other species it isn't so clear.

As to esthetic/moral, ie., emotional, considerations, I can imagine a world without any "wild and free" animals, but I'm pretty sure I wouldn't want to live in such a world. The preservation of a species, any species, seems to have some sort of intrinsic value to me. I don't have a rational explanation for this at the level of ordinary language. Anyway, if a person advocated the extinction of, and had the means to bring about, the extinction of a species such as, say, whales, then I'm pretty sure that I'd rather that that person die than that the species become extinct.

Blue whale population trends:
http://www.wisteme.com/question.view?targetAction=viewQuestionTab&id=8441

Blue whale Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_whale

Humpback whale Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humpback_whale

Fin whale Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fin_whale

Minke whale Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minke_whale

Japanese whaling Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_whaling

Whale species Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_whale_species

 

[dreiter]

So it's about hard science until I ask you to present the science, and then it's about the "greater good of the planet"? A claim based in personal feeling and individual interpretation if I'm not mistaken.

I don't understand your question. We are debating whaling, are we not? Pros and cons? I think part of the problem is that we are having two separate arguments. One is about the feasibility of 'sustainable hunting' and the other is about the ethics of hunting at all. So which point are you trying to argue Mech? That sustainable hunting works to control populations? I don't see how anyone can argue against that. My points are against the concept of hunting in general, specifically the ethical and environmental issues of hunting.

 

[nismaratwork]

(reply to posts #30 and #31, and in general) Mech Engineer, there's a reason that the cultures you describe tend to be nomadic, or collapse under change. Generally such communities eventually grow and hunt themselves out of an area. Even if you have 100 responsible generations, it just takes one to create an unsustainable pattern of hunting and farming.

As for the intelligence argument, I'd say that open questions about it and the complete LACK of any need to do this, makes it absurd. I can't claim to make a deep moral argument, but if we don't need whale products (oil, ambergris, bones, meat) for essentials this is just absurd.

Now, it isn't wrong for you to eat a chimp, but you'd be an idiot to do it wouldn't you? I mean, think of the pathology, much as the case with pigs. We get to eat pork, and in return for our kind stewardship, we've created a vast reservoir for viral mutation in a near-human analogue (not in terms of intelligence). Is it morally wrong to have huge hog farms that serve as breeding pits for influenza?... no, but it's dumb.

In the case of cetaceans, we don't know what their intelligence is, or isn't. Clearly some are far more capable and self aware than previously thought (mirror experiments), but let's take this to the logical Mech Eng extreme:

Can I eat retarded people? How about ones in a PVS? I'm fitter, and a hell of a lot brighter, and I'm hungry. I have to ignore the abundance of other food sources, the macabre nature of my act, and the reality that I've chosen to eat closer to the top of the brainiac pile than the bottom.

Can I eat babies? Certainly a dolphin or humpback is far more capable and intelligent than a human infant, right? Maybe a better straw man for you to construct would have been that, and not wild animals which are by definition FREE of morality, hunting. Humans know what we're doing and have option a lion or tiger doesn't. Unless you're prepared to defend a "might makes right/bright makes right" argument, I'd be thrilled.

Last question: Why can't I kill other people if this is such a non-issue? There are billions of people, and an obvious source of protein, and intelligence or empathy shouldn't be a factor. Peoplebasa at my place; bring a light pilsner.