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 B�s� 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]

Originally Posted by isanatori

Hello,

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

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

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]

Originally Posted by isanatori

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...8/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/conservatio...tm#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/Move...d/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]

Originally Posted by Reiku

...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.

Originally Posted by isanatori

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."

Originally Posted by isanatori

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]

Originally Posted by bossel

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:

Originally Posted by bossel

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.

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.

Originally Posted by bossel

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]

Originally Posted by Reiku

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:

Originally Posted by bossel

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.

Originally Posted by bossel

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.

Originally Posted by bossel

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.

Originally Posted by bossel

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.

Originally Posted by bossel

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.

Originally Posted by bossel

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 *** 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]

Originally Posted by Reiku

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 *** 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]

Originally Posted by Reiku

...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.

~

Originally Posted by World Citizen

[...]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]

Originally Posted by 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. 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,

Originally Posted by Bossel

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.

Originally Posted by Bossel

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". 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.

Originally Posted by Bossel

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.