eating whale meat as japanese culture

[sharing the earth]

Who said the habit of eating whale meat is a tradition in Japan?
In general habit of eating whale meat as Japanese culture doesn't exist anymore. We can hardly see any whale meat in any supermarkets here in
Tokyo.Whaling industry in Japan has become something that has nothing to do with our daily life for most of the Japanese. That's why most people here don't have a direct interest in whaling. and some of the confusion is being forced on the Japanese people by the GOVERNMENT and INDUSTRIES.
Even if Japan stoped whaling , the culture would not be hurt at all.

[Mandylion]

Hello and wlcome to JREF! Hope you have fun.

Just a quick question for my own clarification -

Do you object to whaling as a practice, or do you object that whaling is painted at "traditional," or do you object to both? If people just came out and admited they like to eat whale because it tastes good would that be okay?

[isanatori]

Hello,

It is true that most Japanese have nothing to do with whaling and don't eat whale meat or blubber anymore.

However, it must be said that whaling is still an important activity and cultural asset in some communities such as Taiji (Wakayama-ken), the south of the Bôsô peninsula (Chiba-ken) or Ayukawa in the city of Ishinomaki (Miyagi-ken). It's not only for economical reasons, since whaling and whale meat play an important role in cultural and social aspects of everyday life in these places.

Just because they are only a few peoples involved in whaling in Japan, compared to the whole population, is not a reason for the government to drop it. The peoples in these communities are already hit hard by the moratorium and would lose more if whaling was to come to an end. Hopefully, it won't.

btw, Sharing the earth, i doubt that you can't find any whale meat in Tokyo. Maybe you've not looked for it enough, because I remember finding canned whale in some "combini" or supermarkets in places smaller than Tokyo.

[Hiroyuki Nagashima]

Hello,

It is true that most Japanese have nothing to do with whaling and don't eat whale meat or blubber anymore.


:okashii:
Today,
I saw it meat of a whale being sold in a supermarket.
Meat of a whale is sold every day.:souka:

There is a famous whale restaurant in Shibuya.
http://r.gnavi.co.jp/g584700/

:?

[isanatori]

Hi,

There's also a shop in Asakusa that sells by-products from scientific whaling.
http://www.e-kujira.or.jp/topic/coo/04/0319/

[Planusa98]

I love japanese food... Whale meat I have not tried yet but it seems to be a good fatty food ........I eat the worlds perfect food acai ....

[earthangel]

For those who are fixating on the taste of whale meat or the loss of income for a few fishing families, perhaps you should look at the big picture which is that whales are at less than 1% of former numbers and NO species have recovered from over 200 years of commercial whaling. That is why the IWC has a moratorium on whaling which Japan consistently and disrespectfully ignores. Then it has the audacity to accuse whale defenders as being disrespectful of Japanese culture! Whale meat is not a traditional food. However the government is introducing it into the school lunch program and into fast food restaurants. What a clever way to reduce Japan's population! Since whale meat is extremely high in mercury, its potential to give cancer to whale eaters is high. Japan is losing international respect as a result of its poor ecological decisions. Furthermore, its behavior in Antarctica threatening to shoot the whale defenders and ramming their ships (thereby endangering the crew) just shows their lack of integrity.

[isanatori]

Hi,

I'm sorry to say, Earth Angel, that almost all you wrote is misinformation that has been orchestrated by the anti-whaling movement.

To say that there's only 1% of the former global numbers of whales is not very precise as all species shall be managed independently. The IWC made the mistake to adopt a global quota system beetween 1945 and 1972 : the Blue Whale Unit (BWU) which made equivalences between the different species of great whales (eg. 1 blue whale = 2 fin whales = 2.5 humpback whales...). The BWU system, which is not a Japanese invention, has been responsible for the strong decline of the biggest species. So let's not mix all the species.

It is false to say that no species have recovered. The grey whale in Northwest Pacific has recovered to it pre-whaling level. Humpbacks and fin whales are recovering in the Antarctica. The former has been protected for almost 40 years now, far before the moratorium was adopted by the IWC, without its scientific committee's agreement.

Scientific whaling Japan is operating is not a violation of the 1982 moratorium or of the 1994 Southern Oceans sanctuary. You should read carefully the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, specially article VIII. You will understand that Japan is not breeching any law and it can sell the by-products of its scientific whaling.

Whale meat is a traditional food in some communities in Japan. Read again what I wrote before in this thread.
Not all whale meat has high concentration of mercury and PCBs. This almost concerns meat, blubber and organs from toothed cetaceans (Sperm whales, beaked whales, dolphins, etc.) Meat from Antarctic Minke whales is clear.

What about the fuss occuring actually near Antarctica between Japanese whalers and Greenpeace+Sea Shepherd...well I think that once more the latter is operating some misinformation campaign to discredit the Japanese whalers. Sea Shepherd are convicted terrorists who have rammed and sunk many boats across the world. I can't believe that they are not responsible for harassing the whalers and trying to cause important damages whatever the danger.

Please, tell me Earthangel, are you just believing everything Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd are saying ? Or are you as much a fanatic as them, and try to misinform peoples on this forum?

[bossel]

The grey whale in Northwest Pacific has recovered to it pre-whaling level. Humpbacks and fin whales are recovering in the Antarctica.
Er..., depends on whose information you use. According to Palumbi's genetic study there may have been up to 1.5 m Humpbacks before commercial whaling began. Current estimates range from 20,000 to 35,000. The difference regarding Fin Whales is not quite so big but still: pre-whaling up to 360,000, now 47,000 to 56,000. If you call that recovering...

You will understand that Japan is not breeching any law and it can sell the by-products of its scientific whaling.
The question is: What exactly do they scientifically do with these dead whales?

Please, tell me Earthangel, are you just believing everything Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd are saying ? Or are you as much a fanatic as them, and try to misinform peoples on this forum?
With the same right I could ask you whether you're just believing what the Japanese gov & the whaling industry are saying?

[sharing the earth]

Does anyone know why Green peace seems not to accept Sea Shepherd conservation as cooperator regarding anti-whaling?

Both of them should have the same goal that is to stop whaling.
Both of them were born from same roots.
Both of them seems to have not been getting on well eachother for years.

[Reiku]

Is JRef under attack by animal activists?

Just wondering because there suddenly seem to be a bunch of new members whose posts and member titles seem to indicate they only came here to debate AR related topics...

...anyway, my opinion on the matter is this: The rule of nature is survival of the fittest. If whales don't survive our hunting of them, that's not really any kind of tragedy--or even a bad thing. A new species will fill the ecological niche currently occupied by whales, or--worst case scenario--it will set off a cataclysmic chain reaction that destroys the entire food chan and ends all life on earth...

...either way, who are we to argue with the principles of nature? It's been working just fine for quite a while now.

We live, or we die, whales live, or they die--ultimately it's every species' own responsibility to ensure it's survival...

...and no one else's.

[isanatori]

To Bossel :

Here you can find an article about Australian researchers saying that Humpback whales are recovering, although it doesn't mean this whale species has reach its pre-whaling levels in the Antarctica.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200508/s1449759.htm

Palumbi's study is certainly interesting but many scientists in the scientific committee of the IWC are skeptical about the results as there is a big difference between the estimates from whaling records and Palumbi's numbers. This study certainly need to be peer-reviewed.

I suppose the Japanese are collecting samples from the whales they kill during their scientific whaling campaigns. The rest is sold to help found the research.
JARPA2 and JARPN2 programmes are certainly not vital to the management of whale stocks, but the scientific committee in the IWC don't have a negative view on these programmes. (even though there is no consensus on the need to kill whales to obtain the data)
http://www.iwcoffice.org/conservation/permits.htm#japan
http://www.iwcoffice.org/conservation/permits.htm#discussions

I don't think I'm believing everything the Japanese government and whalers are saying, but I can't help answering to all the misinformation opponents to whaling are orchestrating.
For example, in a recent media release, Sea Shepherd leader Paul Watson listed 6 points "proving that Japan is violating International conservation law". You just need to read carefully the International Convention for the regulation of whaling to understand that Watson is misleading peoples.


To Sharing the Earth :

The reason why Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd are not getting on well with each other is that they don't share the same philosophy about how to achieve their goals.
Greenpeace are "trying" to operate peacefully. Sea Shepherd are convicted terrorists. See their record here :
http://www.highnorth.no/Library/Movements/Sea_Shepherd/se-sh-re.htm
You'll notice that Sea Shepherd have been banned from attending IWC meetings as an observer for their violent conduct.

When Watson says that the Nisshin-maru has been trying to ram his boat, you have to be ignorant of his past or very credulous to believe it. Specially when you read another statement from him, where he announces he's ready to sustain damage to stop the Japanese whalers...
This guy is a dangerous fanatic. Greenpeace certainly don't want to damage their image with this kind of behaviour (even though they're not always as peaceful as they would like to be).

[bossel]

...anyway, my opinion on the matter is this: The rule of nature is survival of the fittest. If whales don't survive our hunting of them, that's not really any kind of tragedy--or even a bad thing.
A slight misunderstanding of evolution. One species dying out doesn't mean that there are no other consequences. It actually may lead to the collapse of whole ecosystems. Which eventually may have dire consequences for mankind. It's arguable whether that need be considered a bad thing, but most humans probably will think so.

worst case scenario--it will set off a cataclysmic chain reaction that destroys the entire food chan and ends all life on earth...
Almost as improbable as there being a god.

We live, or we die, whales live, or they die--ultimately it's every species' own responsibility to ensure it's survival...
Essentially every individual is responsible for its own survival. That doesn't mean though that I should drive my car without any consideration of pedestrians or bikers. You do perhaps, I don't.



Here you can find an article about Australian researchers saying that Humpback whales are recovering, although it doesn't mean this whale species has reach its pre-whaling levels in the Antarctica.
Thanks for the links. The article states pretty much the same as what I said, only that they call it recovery (I wouldn't, it's too early to say).
"Absolutely and particularly at this vulnerable stage because it really is just now starting to show significant signs of increase," Professor Harrison said.
[...]
"But the key thing to remind everybody is that prior to whaling last century the estimated number in this population was somewhere between 20,000 to 30,000 humpback whales so we're not yet at a quarter of the original population size."

Palumbi's study is certainly interesting but many scientists in the scientific committee of the IWC are skeptical about the results as there is a big difference between the estimates from whaling records and Palumbi's numbers. This study certainly need to be peer-reviewed.
Of course & it is (independent study by Baker found similar results). The IWC actually called for further research to reconcile the numbers.

but the scientific committee in the IWC don't have a negative view on these programmes. (even though there is no consensus on the need to kill whales to obtain the data)
Which does say something about the IWC's scientific committee. Stock structure can be easily researched by genetic sampling, no need to kill. The research of their role in the ecosystem doesn't need killing either.

For example, in a recent media release, Sea Shepherd leader Paul Watson listed 6 points "proving that Japan is violating International conservation law". You just need to read carefully the International Convention for the regulation of whaling to understand that Watson is misleading peoples.
Watson is an idiot, unlike Palumbi. I don't see what the one has to do with the other.

[Reiku]

A slight misunderstanding of evolution. One species dying out doesn't mean that there are no other consequences. It actually may lead to the collapse of whole ecosystems. Which eventually may have dire consequences for mankind. It's arguable whether that need be considered a bad thing, but most humans probably will think so.

A slight misunderstanding of my point--and my knowlege on the subject.

The fact is that animals being hunted to extinction is a natural part of the evolutionary process--it has been going on long before man started doing it, and will likely continue long after we're gone.

Dire consequences for mankind?

As you put it:

Almost as improbable as there being a god.

Although I should point out that quantum physics has essentially proved the existance of all "gods"...

...but that's a heated debate for another thread.:blush:

At any rate, my point is that it is that evolution is designed to function best for non-thinking animals--when we humans begin to second guess it, we almost inevitably trip ourselves up--witness the mistakes of the Nazi's, for example.

Their misunderstanding of evolution--and their subsequent attempt to use that flawed knowlege for their own benifit--led to a massive disaster which is still adversely affecting our species to this day.

Essentially every individual is responsible for its own survival. That doesn't mean though that I should drive my car without any consideration of pedestrians or bikers. You do perhaps, I don't.

Actually, I don't have a car--I prefer to walk. (Also I'm poor.)

You seem to have misunderstood me on this point, however:

I did not say every individual was responsible for their own survival--I said each species is responsible for it's own survival.

Being a species that reproduces sexually, individual survival actually works against us--as it causes older, entrenched versions to compete with the new, more evolved generation.

No, for an animal such as humanity, the responsibility is for preservation of the species. If one of us were to get in a car and start killing off vast numbers of our population, it would only work against us. Likewise, if we killed of our primary food source or caused enough environmental changes (I don't say "environmental damage", because there's no such thing.), we would also put ourselves at risk--so care and moderation are required.

However, considering a whale's environment and our relative inability to follow it there--I would say that makes them one of the least likely species to be hunted to extinction by humans.

Granted, we might manage to kill them some other way--such as through the introduction of industrial chemicals or radiation into the oceans--and I won't doubt for a second that if whales were suddenly gone it would be very disruptive to the entire ecosystem, as the oceans are key to many planet-regulating effects...

...but consider this: How many species of whale are there--that we know of?

How many species of other, similar animals in the sea?

How long do you think it would take us to eleminate the entire population of all known whale species through whaling alone?

Do you honestly think some other marine species wouldn't be adapting to take the whale's place as soon as their numbers began to decline?

Do you honestly think that isn't happening right now?

People cannnot stop nature, we might be able to cause some sudden, major global changes through nulear or biological war--but as the cold war showed us nature has that one covered too.

Just when it was most likely, some instinct went *tick* in the back of our heads--and we began disarming and backing down.

Now the threat isn't imminent, and we're gettin' all reved up again--but no matter...

...several billion years of evolution-honed instinct has us on a very short leash.

[bossel]

A slight misunderstanding of my point--and my knowlege on the subject.
Yep, I see that.

The fact is that animals being hunted to extinction is a natural part of the evolutionary process--it has been going on long before man started doing it, and will likely continue long after we're gone.
Natural, maybe, but not very common. Species hunted to extinction almost only happens when a new predator is suddenly introduced to a new environment, eg. cats on some island.

Dire consequences for mankind?

As you put it:
As what I put was in reaction to your "ends all life on earth..." this doesn't hold water in this regard. Dire consequences for mankind is by far not as improbable as you seem to think, if part of the marine ecosystem collapses.

Although I should point out that quantum physics has essentially proved the existance of all "gods"...
I see where you're coming from.

At any rate, my point is that it is that evolution is designed to function best for non-thinking animals
Can't see your point. Do you mean we should stop thinking about evolution? Or that we shouldn't interfere with evolution (which is almost impossible)?

You seem to have misunderstood me on this point, however:

I did not say every individual was responsible for their own survival--I said each species is responsible for it's own survival.
Nope, didn't misunderstand, I extrapolated your point.

Being a species that reproduces sexually, individual survival actually works against us--as it causes older, entrenched versions to compete with the new, more evolved generation.
Wrong.

However, considering a whale's environment and our relative inability to follow it there--I would say that makes them one of the least likely species to be hunted to extinction by humans.
Whales are not one species, they're an order: Cetacea, with 81 species.
Their low reproduction rate actually makes them more likely to be hunted to extinction than most other animals. 6 species are endangered (through whaling, in spite of our "inability").

I won't doubt for a second that if whales were suddenly gone it would be very disruptive to the entire ecosystem, as the oceans are key to many planet-regulating effects...
& probably key to the feeding of the future human overpopulation.

...but consider this: How many species of whale are there--that we know of?
According to you: only one. According to science: some 81.

How many species of other, similar animals in the sea?
Er, nil?

How long do you think it would take us to eleminate the entire population of all known whale species through whaling alone?
If we would go on where we stopped at 1986? Roughly 20-40 years, I suppose.

Do you honestly think some other marine species wouldn't be adapting to take the whale's place as soon as their numbers began to decline?
Yep, or could you name one? Evolution is in most cases a matter of 100,000s if not millions of years.

Do you honestly think that isn't happening right now?
Yep.

Just when it was most likely, some instinct went *tick* in the back of our heads--and we began disarming and backing down.
Instinct?

[Reiku]

Man, this is like teaching a class--I should be getting paid.

Ah well, here we go:

Natural, maybe, but not very common. Species hunted to extinction almost only happens when a new predator is suddenly introduced to a new environment, eg. cats on some island.

Actually, that's a common misconception. Life is a constant struggle for survival--this is one of the mechanisms that makes evolution work. As a result, there is a continious shifting of dominace up and down the various food chains--some species are edged out quickly, others thrive for long periods of time. True, the effect is more noticable--and gets more press--when we are directly or indirectly responsible for it, so we generally only hear about situations where humans have introduced a new species and changed the balance of the local ecosystem. But contrary to common belief, evolution is a constant process that occurs by small incriments with each generation--it does not sit still for centuries and then create entirely new species overnight, but rather it is redesigning the existing species every day, and it only takes a small advantage to tip the balance one way or another, leading one species to extinction, and another to dominance.

As what I put was in reaction to your "ends all life on earth..." this doesn't hold water in this regard. Dire consequences for mankind is by far not as improbable as you seem to think, if part of the marine ecosystem collapses.

True, but the marine ecosystem is quite simply not going to collapse without someting much more drastic than whaling behind it. While it is essentialy the first step in the global ecosystem, it is also the oldest and most refined--and not an easy thing to throw out of balance.

To be honest, I only put that "end of all life on earth" scenario in there to avoid having one of these uninformed environmentalists bring it up. I figured I'd just point out it's irrelevancy to the argument and avoid having to challenge one of the key faiths upon which environmentalism is built with logic as my only weapon. :okashii:

I see where you're coming from.

I hope so--many people are sadly misinformed about quantum physics and veiw those who study it with the same suspicion usually reserved for religious cults...

...but as I said before--that's a heated debate for another thread.

Can't see your point. Do you mean we should stop thinking about evolution? Or that we shouldn't interfere with evolution (which is almost impossible)?

Not that we should stop thinking about it--just that we should stop trying to act on those thoughts without a complete understanding...

...I should point out that a complete understanding of the global ecosystem is likely to be far beyond us at this point.

Nope, didn't misunderstand, I extrapolated your point.

That wasn't an extrapolation--that was a distortion. Survival of the individual without concern for the species is nearly a complete reversal. You could argue that--extrapolating outward--survival of the species at the expense of the ecosystem is just as harmful, but ecosystems are not as fragile as most people seem to think they are.

Being a species that reproduces sexually, individual survival actually works against us--as it causes older, entrenched versions to compete with the new, more evolved generation.
Wrong.

Actually, you're mistaken on that--this is precicesly the reason why death became nessecary in the first place. Although a more evolved species should be able to win out in a struggle for survival against a less evolved version--that being one of the reasons it is said to be "evolved", rather than a genetic dead end--if the older generation never dies off, the pressure for space and food would eventually kill both versions of the species, and likely take out a good number of other species in the proccess.

As such, it is nessecary for members of a sexually-reproducing species to survive, reproduce, and then make room for the next generation. The test of the next generation is not competing against it's predicessors directly, but rather in surpassing their performance...

...ah.

I've just read the rest of your responses--apparently this is another matter that discussion will not solve.

While you are correct in that whales are an order and not a single species, I deliberately chose to not use exact teminology in the interest of conversation.

The differance between a species and an order is not a part of common vernacular--and for the purposes of that statement it was not nessecary to be quite so technical:

Someone not intimately familiar with the subject would still understand my meaning--and someone who recognized the differance should have been able to see my point remained valid regardless of my using less than formal terminology...

...however, judging from the rest of your statements after this point, you seem more interested in finding a flaw of grammar to attack than in actualy having a rational debate--and your lack of understanding about the principles of evolution doesn't help either.

I'm fresh off dealing with strongvoicesforward, and though you aren't nearly as bad, I really don't feel like attemting once again to have a debate with someone who doesn't fully understand what he's talking about and yet is unshakeably convinced of the validity of his own opinions...

...surely they didn't teach you that "Evolution is in most cases a matter of 100,000s if not millions of years." in school? I know schools here in the US are in a pretty sad state--but it can't be that bad all over?

Well, for my peace of mind, I'll assume you got that little falsehood from one of the X-Men movies.

Anyway, I really don't feel like spending the energy necessary to prove you wrong on this--please read a current book on evolution and PM me when you're ready to continue the debate--or just call me a pompus ass who doesn't know what he's talking about, I really don't care.

I am more than a little arrogant--but the books in my library say I'm also more than a little right.

[bossel]

Man, this is like teaching a class--I should be getting paid.
Well, pay me 1st!

Actually, that's a common misconception. Life is a constant struggle for survival--this is one of the mechanisms that makes evolution work. As a result, there is a continious shifting of dominace up and down the various food chains--some species are edged out quickly, others thrive for long periods of time. True, the effect is more noticable--and gets more press--when we are directly or indirectly responsible for it, so we generally only hear about situations where humans have introduced a new species and changed the balance of the local ecosystem. But contrary to common belief, evolution is a constant process that occurs by small incriments with each generation--it does not sit still for centuries and then create entirely new species overnight, but rather it is redesigning the existing species every day, and it only takes a small advantage to tip the balance one way or another, leading one species to extinction, and another to dominance.
You were talking of "animals being hunted to extinction", not about constant struggle for survival or small advantages. Being hunted to extinction is not as common as your original statement tries to show. That was my point. Nothing like the bla that you produced above.

BTW, since you talk about teaching: Maybe you should go to school again, before you try to teach others. Contrary to your belief evolution is not only a "constant process that occurs by small incriments", but can happen rather quickly with rather big "incriments." Evolution can actually "sit still" not only for centuries but for millions of years.

the marine ecosystem is quite simply not going to collapse without someting much more drastic than whaling behind it. While it is essentialy the first step in the global ecosystem, it is also the oldest and most refined--and not an easy thing to throw out of balance.
Depends on what you call easy. Anyway, nice to know that you understand the marine ecosystem so entirely. Most scientists don't & are hence not sure what would be the effect.
Anyway, I didn't talk of the whole marine ecosystem, but parts of it. The marine ecosystem is made up of many different ecosystems (although mostly interconnected, of course). The ecosystem relying on whalefall seems to have partly collapsed already (even before scientists realised that this ecosystem actually existed, AFAIK).

...I should point out that a complete understanding of the global ecosystem is likely to be far beyond us at this point.
That's exactly the reason why we should interfere in the least possible way.

That wasn't an extrapolation--that was a distortion. Survival of the individual without concern for the species is nearly a complete reversal.
Nope. When you essentially say we can knowingly drive whales to extinction because extinction is so common, the logical follow-up is that we can knowingly run over pedestrians because accidents are so common.

Actually, you're mistaken on that--this is precicesly the reason why death became nessecary in the first place.
Death became necessary? Well, anyway, your original point was " Being a species that reproduces sexually, individual survival actually works against us". Which is simply wrong as it stands there:
Individual survival is necessary for reproductive success.
You didn't say anything about living forever, neither did I. Individual survival up to the point where the biological clock stops ticking is not in & of itself counterproductive.

As such, it is nessecary for members of a sexually-reproducing species to survive, reproduce, and then make room for the next generation.
Then, will you commit suicide after procreation?
Sorry, but your argument is just crappy. It doesn't fit social animals in general.

The test of the next generation is not competing against it's predicessors directly, but rather in surpassing their performance...
& which evolutionary theory is that based on?

While you are correct in that whales are an order and not a single species, I deliberately chose to not use exact teminology in the interest of conversation.
[...]
Someone not intimately familiar with the subject would still understand my meaning--and someone who recognized the differance should have been able to see my point remained valid regardless of my using less than formal terminology...
Then, what was your point in asking how many species there are?

...however, judging from the rest of your statements after this point, you seem more interested in finding a flaw of grammar to attack than in actualy having a rational debate--and your lack of understanding about the principles of evolution doesn't help either.
Look, who's talking.

I'm fresh off dealing with strongvoicesforward,
Yeah, I noticed your attempt at a rational debate there: "I hope a pack of wild animals eats you alive, you disgusting waste."
Very convincing.

have a debate with someone who doesn't fully understand what he's talking about and yet is unshakeably convinced of the validity of his own opinions...
Er...: Look, who's talking (again).

...surely the didn't teach you that "Evolution is in most cases a matter of 100,000s if not millions of years." in school? I know schools here in the US are in a pretty sad state--but it can't be that bad all over?
Maybe I should have said speciation. But someone as knowledgeable as you would surely have understood that, wouldn't you? What's more, what about your "someone who recognized the differance should have been able to see my point remained valid regardless of my using less than formal terminology..."?

Well, for my peace of mind, I'll assume you got that little falsehood from one of the X-Men movies.
Hmm, what? Ah, yes, probably your idea of a rational debate.

please read a current book on evolution
Yawn! & again: Look, who's talking.
Someone who seems not to have heard about punctuated equilibrium or coordinated stasis,

or just call me a pompus ass who doesn't know what he's talking about, I really don't care.
Again I see where you're coming from.

I am more than a little arrogant--but the books in my library say I'm also more than a little right.
Then your books must be quite old.

[Reiku]

Actually, I meant that metaphoricly--as I continue to pursue the study of evolution on an ongoing basis.

Of course, it really is pointless to use logical debate aginst someone who refuses to consider the possibility that they are wrong...

...so I'll go take a look again, and see if anything's changed drasticly in that field since the last time I checked--it's been at least a month or so. There is the small issue of logic actually supporting the views I outlined earlier. But that seems to be a largely misunderstood concept these days--or has the definition of "logic" been changed too?

I'll look them both up, and let you know what I find.

[bossel]

...so I'll go take a look again, and see if anything's changed drasticly in that field since the last time I checked--it's been at least a month or so. There is the small issue of logic actually supporting the views I outlined earlier. But that seems to be a largely misunderstood concept these days--or has the definition of "logic" been changed too?
Well, don't know which logic you follow, but it seems different from mine. (BTW, there is not only one definition for logic.)
How does your logic of a constant process of evolution explain living fossils?

Evolutionary theory surely didn't change drastically in the last month. But I don't know how old the books which you use are. Punctuated equilibria were introduced as a theory in 1972. Your ideas seem to conform with phyletic gradualism, which is a bit older. But, hey, maybe you're living in the past.

At least in Europe it's widely recognised by now that evolution (ISO speciation) is not necessarily a gradual process.

[World Citizen]

The situation in Antartica sums up the pro and anti whalers. Three smaller ships of volunteers against a bigger, larger, Japanese fleet funded by the industrial might of Japan. You could fit all three ships in the main Japanese ship. However, every time Sea Shepherd approaches the Japanese whalers, the whalers run. They do this because they are COWARDS and they are WEAK. Similarly, the 'humans' who eat whales are COWARDS and are WEAK, amongst the lowest forms of scum on this planet. Run like the cowards you are.

[yukio_michael]

Can I interject and ask what is meant when we speak of evolution, (speciation, specifically).... I had a similar argument with someone concerning the notion I felt that say, Humans in our history of them have not evolved as it were into primarily herbivores...
Now speciation states that some species can change over smaller ammounts of time based on their dietary habits, insects for example--- Of course we know that say, cockroaches do change quite rapidly due to the level that they reproduce--- I think this is natural.
Is speciation limited to the type of organism involved? I quite agree that there can be drastic ecological changes if one species thrives, or if one dies out unexpectedly as the food chain is altered.
I'm just wondering to what levels speciation effects evolution as a whole.

~

[...]They do this because they are COWARDS and they are WEAK. Similarly, the 'humans' who eat whales are COWARDS and are WEAK, amongst the lowest forms of scum on this planet. Run like the cowards you are.That has got to be the most level headed and logical response to this whole argument. I'm all out of superlatives here, frankly there's nothing more to say--- you've crafted zeitgeist that will serve not only our generation, but generations to come. Brava, good man, brava!

Oh really?

[Aussie_Chick]

It is quite sad that pro-whaling Japanese people are so arrogant as to realise that they need to catch up with the rest of the world and have a think for a second--- Do they have to eat EVERYTHING that moves? All Japan is doing is making enemies with the rest of the world. No one wanted whaling to start again, it was BANNED world wide for a REASON. They aren't farmed like cows, pigs, chickens etc etc. Their breeding takes much longer to bring stocks up.

[yukio_michael]

It is quite sad that pro-whaling Japanese people are so arrogant as to realise that they need to catch up with the rest of the world and have a think for a second--- Do they have to eat EVERYTHING that moves? All Japan is doing is making enemies with the rest of the world. No one wanted whaling to start again, it was BANNED world wide for a REASON. If the Japs can't find something a bit more ecologically friendly to put on their plates then maybe they should be on the receiving end of a harpoon. Then see how much they like it.I know your best intentions are to tell people how wrong they are, but...

...whaling is probably last on the list of any reason Japan would have issues with any other country.

Using the word "Japs", as you do is a derogatory phrase, and you should consider not using such terminology.

Did you just sign up to J-Ref in order to talk about how much you dislike the "Japs" and their whaling practices, how barbaric "they" are, and how (twice now), you wish death apon people who eat whale-meat? Because that's all you've done thusfar...

[isanatori]

Hi,

Which does say something about the IWC's scientific committee. Stock structure can be easily researched by genetic sampling, no need to kill. The research of their role in the ecosystem doesn't need killing either.

No. As there is no consensus in the IWC Scientific Committee whether the results from Japanese research whaling programmes could be obtained without killing whales, you can not say that.
By the way, it is only Japan that is conducting research about whales in Antarctica. Australia and New Zealand who have a direct interest in whales through their whale-watching industries, aren't doing anything about it.

Of course & it is (independent study by Baker found similar results). The IWC actually called for further research to reconcile the numbers.

Not as much independent as you may think. First, Scott Baker and Steve Palumbi work together very often. Second, Baker is heavily funded by IFAW...that doesn't sound very "independant" to me.
Baker should stick to scientific arguments and avoid to take political positions such as this one : " Now, it seems Japan plans to resume hunting of both species in defiance of the 1986 moratorium on commercial whaling and the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary" (http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/SC0505/S00063.htm). Special permits issued as designated in article VIII of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, are not affected by the 1982 moratorium and the sanctuaries. Baker cannot ignore this, and is just saying the same misleading stuff as Greenpeace, IFAW and co.

Watson is an idiot, unlike Palumbi. I don't see what the one has to do with the other.

I never mixed up Palumbi and Watson. In my previous message, I just answered both to you and Sharing the Earth.
Anyway, I'm pleased to see we agree on one thing : Watson being an idiot. I would even say a dangerous fanatic.


To Aussie Chick :

My opinion is that you don't understand what Japan is trying to achieve. All Japanese whalers want is the right to whale under a sustainable regime.

You should know that, first, a moratorium is by definition a temporary measure, and that second, the 1982 moratorium was adopted on the ground of uncertainty in data related to whale stocks. The IWC decided in 1982 that it would reconsider the moratorium on the base of whales stocks assessment by its Scientific Committee in 1990. You also need to know that the Scientific Committee didn't give its approval for the adoption of the moratorium (a necessary condition by article V of the International Convention for the Regulation Whaling).

In 1990, although the Scientific Committee gave an estimate of 760.000 Antarctic Minke whales, the IWC, controlled by anti-whaling countries, decided to prolong the moratorium ad eternam.

Since the main reason for the moratorium was the so-called uncertainty with regards to whale stocks, member countries like Norway, Iceland and Japan decided to exercise their right to issue "special permits" for scientific whaling as designated in article VIII of ICRW. These special permits are not bound with the moratorium or any other amendments in the Schedule.

So, research whaling as Japan is conducting it in Antarctica is LEGAL under the ICRW and the IWC Scientific Committee has a rather positive view on its results.
You should check IWC's website (http://www.iwcoffice.org/). It is far more reliable than all that's cast by Greenpeace, WWF, IFAW or Western medias.

[Aussie_Chick]

Isanatori and Yukio Michael, I do apologise for using the word "Japs" i do not mean it as derogatory at all. I see it as Australians calling ourselves "aussies" and british people "pommies". No offence meant there at all once again i apologise.

However, this subject hits such a raw nerve, with many people. I do not mean to take my frustration out on you guys but i just feel that the governments aren't listening, the polititians are too busy giving themselves payrises rather than thinking about the welfare of the planet. We only have one planet to live on, there is no need to screw it up.

[nurizeko]

No fan of whaling by any measure, but, with a western tradition of whiping out entire species, and using endangered ones or their eggs as delecacies or ornaments, you can hardly act all high and mighty over the japanese.

Its good your passionate about protecting endangered species, but when it makes you judgemental of a whole people without recognising your own countries and cultures wrong doings, you kind of lose the moral advantage.

Ask as many japanese as you can if they eat whale meat, youll be suprised.

[isanatori]

To Aussie_Chick :

i just feel that the governments aren't listening, the polititians are too busy giving themselves payrises rather than thinking about the welfare of the planet.

Well, governments and politicians are not doing anything against Japanese research whaling, because it is perfectly LEGAL.

Read this article (http://canberra.yourguide.com.au/detail.asp?class=your%20say&subclass=general&category=editorial%20opinion&story_id=399307&y=2005&m=6) by Dan Goodman, it is quite interesting.

By the way, Japanese research whaling is not threatening any whales species. So it's not having any effect on "the welfare of the planet".


To Nurizeko :

As I said earlier in this thread, the consumption of whale meat and blubber in Japan is mostly limited to some whaling communities. The majority of Japanese do not eat whale. But people living in these communities have a right to continue to eat whale meat as long as this custom doesn't endanger the whales species. Actually, the fact that only a few Japanese still eat whale meat and blubber is a good thing, as it means that there's only a small demand for these products...which means that there is no possible return to the large scale whaling operations that occured in the first 60 years of the 20th century.

Minke whales are abundant in the Southern Ocean, and their meat is clean of mercury and chemicals.

So, where's the problem?

[bossel]

Hi,
No. As there is no consensus in the IWC Scientific Committee whether the results from Japanese research whaling programmes could be obtained without killing whales, you can not say that.
Can't see why a missing consensus among IWC members hinders me from stating the obvious & I repeat: Stock structure can be easily researched by genetic sampling (much easier & more efficient than killing, BTW), no need to kill.

Not as much independent as you may think. First, Scott Baker and Steve Palumbi work together very often. Second, Baker is heavily funded by IFAW...that doesn't sound very "independant" to me.
You mean, because they worked together before, the one is unable to conduct a study of different genes than the other, working with a different team?
IFAW funded? The University of Auckland (http://www.sbs.auckland.ac.nz/research/popgenevol/baker/index.htm) then is unable to produce valid research results?
Hmm, then it should be fairly easy to produce studies which contradict the results of Palumbi's & Baker's genetic research. Where are they? (& since you have such high standards in regards to independence, absolutely free of any influence from the Japanese government or other pro-whaling institutions).

Baker should stick to scientific arguments and avoid to take political positions such as this one : " Now, it seems Japan plans to resume hunting of both species in defiance of the 1986 moratorium on commercial whaling and the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary" (http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/SC0505/S00063.htm). Special permits issued as designated in article VIII of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, are not affected by the 1982 moratorium and the sanctuaries. Baker cannot ignore this, and is just saying the same misleading stuff as Greenpeace, IFAW and co.
Interesting that you want to deny scientists the right to publicise a political opinion (freedom of speech?).
Since Japanese whaling can hardly be called scientific, it seems a correct conclusion that the restart of hunting humpbacks & fin whales would be in disagreement with the moratorium.

I never mixed up Palumbi and Watson. In my previous message, I just answered both to you and Sharing the Earth.
Well, since you mentioned this before your response to Sharing it seemed that you identified my arguments in some way with him.

In 1990, although the Scientific Committee gave an estimate of 760.000 Antarctic Minke whales, the IWC, controlled by anti-whaling countries, decided to prolong the moratorium ad eternam.
& as the subsequent genetic studies suggest, quite rightfully so.

[isanatori]

Hi,

Can't see why a missing consensus among IWC members hinders me from stating the obvious & I repeat: Stock structure can be easily researched by genetic sampling (much easier & more efficient than killing, BTW), no need to kill.

Not IWC members, but members of the IWC scientific committee, which means people who know a lot more than us on the biology of whales. The fact that there is no consensus among these specialists of whales about the possibility to earn the same data (as the Japanese research whaling programmes) without killing, you can hardly say that "stock structure can be easily researched by genetic sampling" and without killing.
If it was so, I wonder why nobody has yet started to do non-lethal research on whales in Antarctic waters. (some clues : it is not feasible ; it would cost a lot of money and wouldn't make profit ; it would demonstrate that there are enough Antarctic Minke whales to allow some managed whaling under the Revised Management Procedure)

You mean, because they worked together before, the one is unable to conduct a study of different genes than the other, working with a different team?
IFAW funded? The University of Auckland then is unable to produce valid research results?

No I mean that the fact they work (present, not past) often together, may have an influence on their works.
Yes, Baker is IFAW funded. See here : http://130.216.185.96/page/wftw/intro#FUNDS. I don't mean that the University of Auckland is unable to produce valid research results, just Baker.

Interesting that you want to deny scientists the right to publicise a political opinion (freedom of speech?).
Since Japanese whaling can hardly be called scientific, it seems a correct conclusion that the restart of hunting humpbacks & fin whales would be in disagreement with the moratorium.

I'm not denying any scientist to have political opinions, but when it comes to scientist misleading the public such as Baker does with this quote "Now, it seems Japan plans to resume hunting of both species in defiance of the 1986 moratorium on commercial whaling and the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary".
Whether Japanese whaling programmes can be called scientific or not, is just your opinion. However you cannot deny that the IWC scientific committee has a good opinion on Japan's research. Besides, it is legal and is not bound with the moratorium or the whale sanctuaries. Baker cannot ignore that.

& as the subsequent genetic studies suggest, quite rightfully so.

The same studies the IWC scientific committee called "for further research to reconcile the numbers" (quoting you). Anyway, these studies were not available in 1990 when the IWC decided to prolong the moratorium without reasons.
The fact is that the anti-whaling camp is against all whaling and lacks any good scientific reason for this. Instead, it just misleads the public opinion with informations that are untrue (whales are going to get extinct, whaling is not sustainable, etc.). Whales have become a good symbol to make money under the name of the so called "protection of the environment".

[bossel]

which means people who know a lot more than us on the biology of whales.
Just like Palumbi & Baker.

The fact that there is no consensus among these specialists of whales about the possibility to earn the same data (as the Japanese research whaling programmes) without killing, you can hardly say that "stock structure can be easily researched by genetic sampling" and without killing.
With a little reasoning of your own you can very well say that.

If it was so, I wonder why nobody has yet started to do non-lethal research on whales in Antarctic waters. (some clues : it is not feasible ; it would cost a lot of money and wouldn't make profit ; it would demonstrate that there are enough Antarctic Minke whales to allow some managed whaling under the Revised Management Procedure)
Oh man, now I'm sure that you're only spreading pro-whaling propaganda.

"not feasible": Crap! Actually, it's the most feasible method.
"cost a lot of money": Crap! Every scientific research costs money, but genetic sampling is surely much cheaper than hunting, killing & transporting the whales back to Japan. It's even cheaper than any useful photo-ID program.
"wouldn't make profit": Crap! Scientific research is to gain knowledge, not to make profit. If profit is made, it may be a welcome benefit, but that's not a primary aim of science.
"there are enough Antarctic Minke whales": Now, I don't know if this is crap, but it's very interesting that you know this so well with the current lack of sufficient data.

No I mean that the fact they work (present, not past) often together, may have an influence on their works.
Or maybe they simply have the same field of research & hence collaborate once in a while on overlapping projects.
Their data are verifiable. Hence any corrupted results should be fairly easy to prove then.

Yes, Baker is IFAW funded. See here : http://130.216.185.96/page/wftw/intro#FUNDS.
Thanks for the link, but this does not prove that Baker is IFAW-funded. It only shows that he got a grant for one part (maintenance of the reference data set) of one particular project (Witness for the Whales). The data coming from that project are still open for verification (& as I said, any falsification should be fairly easy to prove).

I don't mean that the University of Auckland is unable to produce valid research results, just Baker.
Baker works for the UoA, Witness for the Whales is a service by the UoA School of Biological Sciences. His research results are published on their website. Er...

Whether Japanese whaling programmes can be called scientific or not, is just your opinion.
& obviously Baker's. How is it misleading when he states the obvious?

Baker cannot ignore that.
Oh well, what he can or can't is up to him.


Anyway, these studies were not available in 1990 when the IWC decided to prolong the moratorium without reasons.
Without reasons? Just for fun? Obviously the decision was quite correct.

The fact is that the anti-whaling camp is against all whaling
I think, this sounds very logical. It would be a bit strange if the anti-whaling camp were in support of whaling.

and lacks any good scientific reason for this.
Obviously, that depends on how you see it.

Instead, it just misleads the public opinion with informations that are untrue (whales are going to get extinct, whaling is not sustainable, etc.).
Er..., you know that there actually are endangered whale species?

Whales have become a good symbol to make money under the name of the so called "protection of the environment".
But isn't that a good thing, according to you? Just a few lines before that you bemoaned the lack of profit in non-killing research.

[isanatori]

Oh man, now I'm sure that you're only spreading pro-whaling propaganda.

Let's be honest, I do support whaling as long as it is managed in a sustainable way, which RMP will allow (but it would also need a good Revised Management Scheme to control the hunting and the trade of whale products).
However, my opinion is that obviously you are only spreading anti-whaling propaganda.

With a little reasoning of your own you can very well say that [stock structure can be easily researched by genetic sampling" and without killing].

I would be very pleased if you could explain me in detail your reasoning, as it is not so clear to me. Thank you in advance.

"not feasible": Crap! Actually, it's the most feasible method.
"cost a lot of money": Crap! Every scientific research costs money, but genetic sampling is surely much cheaper than hunting, killing & transporting the whales back to Japan. It's even cheaper than any useful photo-ID program.

Then, if it is so easy and so cheap, why is that nobody has tried to undertake such studies in Antarctic waters. I'm sure that it is "obvious" to you.

Without reasons? Just for fun? Obviously the decision was quite correct.

When the IWC/SC made an estimate of 760,000 Antarctic Minke whales, the IWC decided to prolong the moratorium (which was adopted on grounds of uncertainty concerning whales stocks). Could you explain me what was the "obviously quite correct" reason to do so at that time?

& obviously Baker's. How is it misleading when he states the obvious?

But that's not the view of the IWC/SC on the subject. Just because you and Baker, and some other scientists such as Phil Clapham, claim that it is not research, doesn't mean it is not. Why would your opinion and anti-whaling scientists' opinion be more just than pro-whaling scientists' opinion ?
The IWC/SC is a forum composed of both pro- and anti-whaling scientist, as well as neutral scientists (whom I hope are the majority), and still it has a good opinion on Japanese research whaling programmes. That's not propaganda from the Japanese ICR or Japan Fisheries Agency, it is what you can read on the IWC website.

Er..., you know that there actually are endangered whale species?

Yes, I know. I also know that there are also whale species that are far from being endangered. Did you know that?

[bossel]

However, my opinion is that obviously you are only spreading anti-whaling propaganda.
Am I? Some examples, please!

I would be very pleased if you could explain me in detail your reasoning, as it is not so clear to me. Thank you in advance.
Er..., just eg., consider the size of ships, crews & the necessary equipment (& duration of sea voyage, since hunting & hauling the whales aboard takes some time) in comparison to the small boats & crew needed for biopsy sampling.

Then, if it is so easy and so cheap, why is that nobody has tried to undertake such studies in Antarctic waters. I'm sure that it is "obvious" to you.
If you were better informed it should be to you as well. How do you know nobody does?

Actually, the Center for Coastal Physical Oceanography is conducting biopsy sampling in the antarctic. What's more, in collaboration with the IWC, on recommendation of your beloved IWC SC :shock:
Quote:
" The International Whaling Commission Scientific Committee has recommended the use of tissue biopsy on cetaceans as the most effective and least invasive method of obtaining the tissue samples required for molecular genetic and pollutant studies."

Most of the information in my last post is from their website. But, well, since according to you this research is absolutely not feasible, it is probably only done due to the undue influence of some anti-whaling infiltrators in the IWC SC. Terrorists!

Could you explain me what was the "obviously quite correct" reason to do so at that time?
Since the data of pre-whaling population were flawed & hence current population dynamics have to be re-evaluated, it seems very obvious. I did not say it was obvious at that time, but it is obvious that it was the right decision.
But that's not the view of the IWC/SC on the subject.
Ah, I see what you mean by being allowed to have an opinion. You're free to state it as long as it purports the IWC/SC view. Yep, very free, your freedom of speech.

[isanatori]

Hi Bossel,

I see you start to refer to more serious sources than Scott Baker.
I knew about the SOWER programme, but I must admit I didn't know about studies the Center for Coastal Physical Oceanography in cooperation with it.
However, there are issues that the GLOBEC research programme doesn't adress . In particular, some biological parameters such as age distribution and maturity which the Japanese whaling research programmes adress.

Ah, I see what you mean by being allowed to have an opinion. You're free to state it as long as it purports the IWC/SC view. Yep, very free, your freedom of speech.

This is not what I meant. What I wanted to say is that there are many different opinions about the Japanese whaling research programmes among scientists. Just because some as Baker say that it is not "scientific" doesn't make it so. The same can be said about the pro-whaling scientists.
In my opinion, the IWC/SC having a rather positive (which doesn't mean a 100% positive) view on the research Japan is conducting through its JARPA(2) and JARPN(2) programmes, it shows that there is some scientific credibility in these programmes.

Now, it is true that these programmes are good occasion for the Japanese whalers to keep their techniques and know-how "alive".
In my opinion, whaling can be sustainable if properly managed and controlled, which the RMP and RMS (once the latter completed) will make possible. Commercial whaling, in the future, might have to be conducted in a way close to actual Japanese research whaling (but with international scientist aboard) to assure the reliability of data about whales ressources.

However, for all this to become possible, both camp in the IWC must cooperate a lot more than what they are doing. I believe that there is some common points, particularly about the necessity to avoid the whales from get extinct.
In my opinion, what may happen if the IWC continues to be diverted from its purpose (the conservation of whales in order to make for the orderly developement of the whaling industry), is that whaling countries such as Japan and Norway will exit the commission and make their own management bodies (such as the already existing NAMMCO). Then, we would go back to what was the IWC when it was created and the management of whaling would be entirely controled the whaling industry's interests.

[Reiku]

Well, don't know which logic you follow, but it seems different from mine. (BTW, there is not only one definition for logic.)
How does your logic of a constant process of evolution explain living fossils?
Evolutionary theory surely didn't change drastically in the last month. But I don't know how old the books which you use are. Punctuated equilibria were introduced as a theory in 1972. Your ideas seem to conform with phyletic gradualism, which is a bit older. But, hey, maybe you're living in the past.
At least in Europe it's widely recognised by now that evolution (ISO speciation) is not necessarily a gradual process.

Ah well, I try to stay away--but I just can't.

Look, it's real simple:

Parents pass their genetic traits on to their offspring...

...the offspring now have a slightly jumbled combination of the genetic traits of each parent...

...the offspring either lives to pass these traits on, or doesn't.

Evolution isn't just the change from one species to another, there's a constant process of genetic refinement going on with each generation. I say "refinement" because the whole process effectively screens out what doesn't work through natural selection, usually by fine-tuning the traits of existing species from one generation to the next through natural selection. Changes drastic enough to qualify as a new species are rare, and are usually the result of outside pressures.

In the case of one species dying off, it creates room in the ecologocical niche that species occupied. This creates decreased competition for that position, and an increased chance of survival for species with similar traits.

As a result, members of other species that were previously too similar to--whales for example--will instead thrive by beginning to take over the whale's position in the ecosystem. This allows them to reproduce, thus strengthening the traits that were similar to whales. The process continues untill a new, whale-like species evolves to take the place of the now extinct one, preserving the ecosystem with a bare minimum of alterations.

Also, as one hunts a species towards extinction, only those members of that species who are able to avoid being killed survive--their traits are passed on, and the species becomes increasingly harder to hunt.

If a species possesses so little capacity for avoiding predation that it can't prevent itself from being hunted to extinction...

...well, sorry: You've lost the evolution game.

But we have some lovely parting gifts, possibly including a place on the mantle of one of our game's winners.

Yes, there is the possibility that by hunting a species to extinction, we could alter the ecosystem enough to cause our own extinction, but it's simply not that easy to do. There are less dire, but more likely possibilities, such as dropping down a few notches in dominace--but as much as dislike humans, I have to admit that our adaptability and advanced use of science and technology makes even that highly unlikely. At worst our mushrooming population might get cut down to a more sustainable size--which is probably going to happen sooner or later anyway, judging from the way things are going.

When people start raising the spectre of humanity's extinction to support arguments against hunting, I'm forced to believe they either don't know what they are talking about, or are willing to use sensationalistic lies to win support for their cause.

By the way: There is only one definition for logic, sadly it's often misused or misunderstood. I suppose that makes sense--as one must use logic in order to understand it.

In any event, if you wish to debate this further I suggest we make a new thread--as our dissagreement seems more about the natue of evolution than the hunting of whales.

[nurizeko]

Bullsye, Reiku, couldnt have said it better if i tried myself, but chances are, those who you refer to that want to stop hunting, ussually have other motives and agendas apart from comming to the anti-hunting conclusion after logically and rationally looking at biology, evolution, and you know, the actual facts.
Some people just need the ego boost that comes with a cause to fight, even if it has no real basis.
Plus any idiot who thinks a world without whales would suddenly blow up obviously doesnt pay too much attention in biology class.
Yes it would be a loss, yes its sad if the whales died out, but it would unlikely be the end of life on earth.
I agree with you so much on that comment, if a species is so un-adaptable, so unable to go with the flow of nature and evolution and change and survive, and is so fragile with its hold onto existance that its being out-predated by another species or cant find its one and only source of food anymore, then by evolutionary terms your right, its a dead-end.
Like koala's and Pandas....its a shame, their nice creatures and stuff, but for the love of gods why their genetics decided they should only eat one species of plant is breyond me, Its like, evolutionary speaking, the koala and panda species are wanting to die out.
I think if humans dissappeared tomorrow, the ecosystem would be in more chaos then with the loss of a few whales (the whales are at the top of their food chain so apart from maybe an explosion in plankton, its hardly the end of the world).

[isanatori]

Hello,

To bossel,

You may find this article quite interesting :
Whale numbers disputed
Pre-whaling population estimates upset conservationists.
25 July 2003
TOM CLARKE (http://www.rain.org/pipermail/sanctuary-naturalist-corps/2003-August/001883.html)

[sabro]

It doesn't seem, especially with those lower estimates, that the whale population can take much external stress- with that low a population carrying capacity, and their long breeding cycle- hunting seems like a bad idea.

[bossel]

Ah well, I try to stay away--but I just can't.
Look, it's real simple:
What you wrote is not only simple, but simplistic. Looks a lot like Social-Darwinism readjusted for justifying the wilful or negligent destruction of species.

When people start raising the spectre of humanity's extinction to support arguments against hunting
Did I do that? Where?

By the way: There is only one definition for logic, sadly it's often misused or misunderstood.
M-W:
1 a (1) : a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the formal principles of reasoning (2) : a branch or variety of logic <modal logic> <Boolean logic> (3) : a branch of semiotic; especially : SYNTACTICS (4) : the formal principles of a branch of knowledge b (1) : a particular mode of reasoning viewed as valid or faulty (2) : RELEVANCE, PROPRIETY c : interrelation or sequence of facts or events when seen as inevitable or predictable d : the arrangement of circuit elements (as in a computer) needed for computation; also : the circuits themselves
2 : something that forces a decision apart from or in opposition to reason <the logic of war>

Cambridge ALD:
logic (REASONABLE THINKING)
noun [U]
a particular way of thinking, especially one which is reasonable and based on good judgment

logic (FORMAL THINKING)
noun [U]
a formal scientific method of examining or thinking about ideas


Looks like more than one definition.

[Reiku]

I love how you failed to comment on the validity of my statements, Bossel.

You can dismiss it as "simplistic", or by saying it "Looks a lot like Social-Darwinism", but it seems you are unable to actually refute the validity of what I said.

Likewise, you can post as many definitions of the word logic as you please, logic itself is a thing, not the verbal or written symbols we use to represent it, and indeed has only one definition--or to be more accurate: Only one correct definition.

I find it ironic that I am defending whaling, since I myself do not believe it is nescessary and would personally prefer it not occur--but I also believe that making something illegal just because you don't like it or have no personal need for it is very, very wrong.

So let me restate:

I don't think we should hunt whales.

But I can find no logical basis for that opinion, and therefore cannot justify any attempt to enforce it.

[bossel]

I love how you failed to comment on the validity of my statements, Bossel.
Both your simplistic view of evolution & attempt at justifying wilful or negligent eradication of species have already been addressed before. Your last post more or less merely repeated what you had written before. I don't have enough time to simply repeat the same argument all over.

Likewise, you can post as many definitions of the word logic as you please, logic itself is a thing, not the verbal or written symbols we use to represent it, and indeed has only one definition--or to be more accurate: Only one correct definition.
Logic is an abstract concept & hence completely reliant on the symbols we use to specify it. The one & only correct definition you propose is probably your favoured definition, but surely not the only one.

But I can find no logical basis for that opinion
Probably dependent on your one & only correct definition of logic.

[strongvoicesforward]

Is JRef under attack by animal activists?


Oh, this is funny. Another comment from someone who is "happiest" when they are "angry."

JRef is in no way under attack from animal activists. If animal activists wanted to flood the sight for days, weeks, or months, believe me they could. The more organized ones could set up a strong campaign to do so.

HOWEVER, animal activists have no intention of doing that to sights like this. These are forums set up as venues for people to discuss and disseminate information amongst themselves. The last thing animal activists want to do is be sitting in a forum on line with a hundred other activists saying the same thing and not getting their message out to those who do not think like them. These forums are viewed with respect by animal activists, an essential part of their tools in keeping the world connected to the problems animals face.

A specific section for "whaling" is set up so it is only natural that those interested in whaling who come upon the site feel a desire to voice their opinion on the topic. I think JRef is an inclusive community and just having that topic is indicative of them welcoming those who are concerned about the issues of whaling.

Very few of those who have come here to the whaling forum have found their way down to the opinion forum in discussions to post in the Animal Rights thread -- and I sure haven`t gone out of my way to invite any. I am pretty much the lone voice on Animal Rights here on JRef (except for Tsuyoiko who seems to be a little more low key on it than me.)

For just one person being active on Animal Rights here, I wouldn`t consider JRef being under "attack" -- unless one`s paranoia makes them happy, too.

[nurizeko]

Voice, these forums are first and formost about Japan, if these forums are an important part of the animal activist campaign then their not thinking very well.

Animal acivists need to take their debates to political and enviromental sites and forums, not some obscure forum about Japan mainly visitted by J-rockers who couldnt give a **** for the whales and a few Japan ex-pats and frequent visitors.

None of the above groups care about enviromentalism or have the power to change things, were a fringe group of society, and in no way in our current numbers influence any enviromental policy.

And those of us living in Japan live in a country which frankly doesnt care for foreign residents bitching about the enviroment at all.


If your mission apart from a few whaling debates is to actually spread the enviromentalist philosophy, your best bet is to take your well written and engaging opinions to places where they can make a difference.

Its like a war of the worlds scenario, where folk celebrate killing one tripod walker, is it really that big of a victory compaared to the millions upon millions of dead humans and millions upon millions more in line to join them?.

Its like hammering away at a giant metal cube and eventually chipping it.

What you need to do is hit it at a weak spot with a more powerful weapon.

So go forth SVF and make a difference - where it counts.

[strongvoicesforward]

Voice, these forums are first and formost about Japan, ...

Correct, and they remain as such. People posting on animal activism or the whaling is quite all right as well. Threads and sections exist for them. Like I said, activists would not want this to become an Animal Rights lopsided forum. I am glad there are very few of us here.

if these forums are an important part of the animal activist campaign then their not thinking very well.

The whole body of public forums that exist for open exchange of ideas are valued by activists for getting issues they feel important pushed to the forefront for discussion. More discussion leads to more social awareness. More social awareness could cause more influential or future influential person to be moved on the spectrum of where they stand on animal issues.

Animal acivists need to take their debates to political and enviromental sites and forums,...

The do that, but it would be wrong to not spread out as much as possible. LIke I said, it is not wise for Animal Activists to be sitting around in an animal or environmental site talking to one another. That would be speaking to the the believers. No growing of numbers in that way.

...not some obscure forum about Japan mainly visitted by J-rockers who couldnt give a **** for the whales and a few Japan ex-pats and frequent visitors.

Well, we have a disagreement. I have a more positive view of JRef than you do and I do not feel they are so obscure to not attract others with wide interests or those even open to new ideas or social issues for debate.

Japan is also my home of residence, and many in Japan do visit this site. I feel quite justified in making myself and issues important to me available for engagement by others in my community. Perhaps you don`t. I do, and I would not ask you to not do so to issues important to you or discourage you from doing it in a way you feel is most positive for you.

None of the above groups care about enviromentalism or have the power to change things, were a fringe group of society, and in no way in our current numbers influence any enviromental policy.

Nurizeko, you are wrong. I have been PMed by a few people from those groups with comments on some of my animal posts. You do presume too much into areas you cannot see. As to whether they have "power," is irrelevant for raising concious understanding of or interest in the issues.

Don`t get too hung up on numbers, as well. Most great social changes have always started with one, two, or three dedicated people who were not in power. Things take time and no one never knows where the next great social leader on any issue will rise from. Why should people visiting JRef be ruled out of the equation?

And those of us living in Japan live in a country which frankly doesnt care for foreign residents bitching about the enviroment at all.

Have you jumped from Animal Rightists/activists to environmentalists? You should know by now that I am the former, so I have no reason why you switched to environmentalists. But, I would take issue that the governement doesn`t take notice here of activists. Of course we have not won anything on a grand scale as of yet, but one of the great things foreign animal activists are doing here is exporting their views on animals from America and Europe to Japan, which is slowly taking hold. Peta has had several demos in Tokyo and are in the process of getting members here -- perhaps soon to open up a Japan office, and the Animal Rights Center of Japan has been established and they are showing every sign of being as hard core as Peta and probably more.

If your mission apart from a few whaling debates is to actually spread the enviromentalist philosophy, your best bet is to take your well written and engaging opinions to places where they can make a difference.

Addressed above. In addition, the fight for animal rights is a multi-pronged one. The fight is being taken to clothing stores in Japan, whaling/dolphin hunting ports, media, zoos, pounds, etc... Making a difference takes time.

Its like a war of the worlds scenario, where folk celebrate killing one tripod walker, is it really that big of a victory compaared to the millions upon millions of dead humans and millions upon millions more in line to join them?.

lol. Good example. But you would have been better off not using it. It suits our argumentt better. To your question: YES!

Learning how to knock down the first Tripod (although in the movie it was virus) is a very important victory. It may be the most important one besides the last one that eventually comes. Until one learns how to knock down the first one, there is just a lot of grappling in the dark for the answer.

If Huntington Life Sciences ever goes under, which they are teetering now, you will see, if not hear, the proverbial "shot heard around the world." It will be a monumental marker in the history for the struggle against corporate businesses which make their profits off the backs and bloods of animals.

Its like hammering away at a giant metal cube and eventually chipping it.

Agreed. We are doing that in a number of ways. Believe me, the industry knows they are under assault. They have been taking the AR Movement quite seriously these last 10 years. Never good to storm the gate.

What you need to do is hit it at a weak spot with a more powerful weapon.
So go forth SVF and make a difference - where it counts.

I am forth, Nurizeko. There is no front. I am involved and engaged on my piece of the puzzle when I am away from the computer.

[Reiku]

Aw, man--is SVF back to trolling again?

Or did he never stop and I just quit paying attention?

Look, he's made a few decent posts--I think--so just don't engage him when he's trying to stir up trouble in animal rights and/or religion topics. Debating with him on such subjects is pointless, he doesn't want to listen.

>hammers a "don't feed the trolls" sign into place<

[strongvoicesforward]

Never have been trolling and Admin has never accused me of such. I have posted pretty much here so it is unlikely I have gone unnoticed by them.

I am an avid member of the JRef forum community contributing to discussions on topics that interest me. You asked if JRef was under attack by Animal Activists. I disagreed with that knee-jerk assessment and stated why it was wrong.

Let`s let admin decide when they think JRef is under attack and in threat of being over run. They`ve been doing a good job on their own, needing no prompting from you and can label such members attacking JRef themselves and single them out for action.

[nurizeko]

I have to admit, SVF has mellowed out since his stormy introduction, he seems to be contributing more then stirring trouble.

[Reiku]

Yeah, he does contribute--but sometimes he also tries mightily to piss off the people that don't share his veiws.

He also uses alot of classic trolling techniques, which never achieve anything good no matter what cause you use them for--they just cause trouble and make people angry.

[nurizeko]

Perhaps your right, i havnt really participated in enviromentalist threads for a while.

[Reiku]

Me neither--I've been trying to cut down on my "causing trouble and making people angry", and that's usually what me joining a moral debate amounts to. :evil:

[jlifeintl]

I ate whale meat in Japan for the first time a few years ago. It was like eating a veal cutlet. While not a large part of everyday culture in Japan, a vast majority of school children grew up with it in school and have an acquired taste for it (nostalgic)... Although I love whales (I have friends at U-Mass in the Biology Dept. that have researched whales/dolphins and have gone on many research jaunts with), I wouldn't object to eating whale meat in Japan however I wouldn't go out of my way either to find it or even eat it (not when there are much tastier dishes out there)...

[Fehrant]

After reading the entire topic, despite the fact that I never researched, nor do I have any statistics whatsoever for the whale issue, I decided to post because I'd like to present a bit of a different viewpoint --or at least, that's what I'd like to think.
The post is mostly divided into pro and con sides, both sides properly justified, despite the fact that one side keeps claiming the other's side information is absolutely invalid and unfounded. However, what both sides do, is that they keep attributing or rather justifying actions by ethical values, binary speaking 1 or 0, humanly speaking, right or wrong.

The whales might, or might not be on their way to extinction. Certainly, if they are, it is due to the grace of us humans and what we do with our free time. What does it matter, though? We cut trees, make a hole in the ozone layer bigger by the year, we polute land and water with nuclear waste, and I'm sure there are many other examples of just how wonderful humanity is.

The moment you use a car, it's the moment you are giving a **** about the planet, and this again is just one example. People complain about damaging the environment and whatnot, yet at the end of their days it means nothing as they get into their cars, use paper, etc. We humans live by consuming our environment. I am not one to quote people, or movies, but when Agent Smith in the first Matrix movie defined humanity as a "virus" I think he was 100% accurate.

So, what does it matter if we take yet another decision towards self-destruction?

[Hardyard]

If whales could be made as cute as koalas, would that have any effect?

We used to hunt koalas here for their skins. Would there be a market for koala skin coats?

[Kyoto Returnee]

Who said the habit of eating whale meat is a tradition in Japan?
In general habit of eating whale meat as Japanese culture doesn't exist anymore. We can hardly see any whale meat in any supermarkets here in
Tokyo.Whaling industry in Japan has become something that has nothing to do with our daily life for most of the Japanese. That's why most people here don't have a direct interest in whaling. and some of the confusion is being forced on the Japanese people by the GOVERNMENT and INDUSTRIES.
Even if Japan stoped whaling , the culture would not be hurt at all.

What a fantastic above comment coming straight from the source.

I heard very similar stories from all my Japanese friends and family..

It simply does not make any sense why on earth the Japanese government and a handful of killers whish to constantly pursue the slaughter..

[centrajapan]

Actually not. Why is it outsiders who define Japanese culture and not Japanese themselves? Imperialist Aussie pigs.

[Kyoto Returnee]

Actually not. Why is it outsiders who define Japanese culture and not Japanese themselves? Imperialist Aussie pigs.
Defining member sharing the earth I would think is Japanese going by the avatar flag


So, what does it matter if we take yet another decision towards self-destruction?

You have to start somewhere.

[centrajapan]

sharing the earth

Exactly.
You can go on a whale safari.
I can eat whale sashimi.

There is room for both of us.

[Rose Selavey]

Actually not. Why is it outsiders who define Japanese culture and not Japanese themselves? Imperialist Aussie pigs.
Imperialist Japanese pigs.

[centrajapan]

Japanese are not trying to change Aussies eating habits are they? Aussies are trying to change Japanese eating habits which makes them imperialist pigs.

[Kyoto Returnee]

Japanese are not trying to change Aussies eating habits are they? Aussies are trying to change Japanese eating habits which makes them imperialist pigs.

Once again, a ridiculous comment.

The majority of Australian's and no doubt many other countries disagree with slaughtering whales.

You will be saying next that Australians are racist!

[caster51]

The majority of Australian's and no doubt many other countries disagree with slaughtering whales

many coutries dont care about that because there is no profits.

[Kyoto Returnee]

many coutries dont care about that because there is no profits.

Am I seeing things LOL

[centrajapan]

Am I seeing things LOL

The whale market is not that huge in Japan. Therefore it would be better not to stop hunting but let the people who want to eat whales eat whales because whales eat more fish than humans on this planet and because whale meat is more environmental friendly than pork, beef or lamb.

Countries in the past have voted in favour of Japan to protect their own country's tuna stocks.

Save the earth eat a whale.:cool:

[Rose Selavey]

The whale market is not that huge in Japan. Therefore it would be better not to stop hunting but let the people who want to eat whales eat whales because whales eat more fish than humans on this planet and because whale meat is more environmental friendly than pork, beef or lamb.
Countries in the past have voted in favour of Japan to protect their own country's tuna stocks.
Save the earth eat a whale.:cool:
Minke , Humpback and Fin whales don't eat tuna! In the Southern hemisphere their diet mainly consists of krill and small schooling fish. This is a myth that the whales eat all the fish therefore we should hunt them.

[caster51]

ENVIRONMENTALIST and 2007 Australian of the Year Tim Flannery has declared his support for the hugely unpopular Japanese whaling program.

As Australia prepares to monitor the whaling fleet in Antarctica amid rising diplomatic tensions with Japan, Professor Flannery says there is nothing unsustainable about its annual cull of up to 1000 whales - particularly the common minke whale.

"In terms of sustainability, you can't be sure that the Japanese whaling is entirely unsustainable," Professor Flannery told The Daily Telegraph. "It's hard to imagine that the whaling would lead to a new decline in population."

But the staunch environmentalist, influential scientist, author and climate change crusader said he was pleased Japan had decided to ditch plans to kill up to 50 threatened humpbacks this summer.

"I'm very relieved to see the humpback whale quota dumped," he said.

Stop the whale slaughter: Sign our petition.

But the 935 minke whales that Japan aims to kill each year under its so-called scientific whaling program should not threaten the survival of that species.

Professor Flannery said there were much bigger threats to marine biodiversity and sustainability, including to the future of krill, small crustaceans essential in the sea food chain - and the main sustenance for whales in the Southern Ocean.

Krill populations are declining as a result of over-fishing and because rising sea temperatures are killing off their food sources.

Professor Flannery said he was more concerned about those issues "where our future is most under threat, which is not the minkes".

However, he is worried about how the whales are slaughtered, saying he would like to see them "killed as humanely as possible".

Professor Flannery's views have not changed since his comments on Japanese whaling back in 2003.

In a paper published that year in Quarterly Essay he argued that smaller-brained whales could be hunted sustainably.

"If these animals are closer in intelligence to the sheep than the dog, is it morally wrong to eat them if they can be harvested sustainably?" he wrote.

Japanese whalers have begun their hunt in Antarctica and plan to harpoon almost 1000 whales, including 50 endangered fin whales.

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,22987914-5001021,00.html?from=mostpop

Now it became cultural problem instead of a groundless of sience matter .