13 ms·

Japan to withdraw from the International Whaling Commission

207 points by kn8 8y ago

lm2s 8y ago
Just recently I learned that Japan is not the only country that hunts whales. It seems Norway also does it and to a larger scale. This isn't an excuse for Japan, just sharing this info for others that might unaware that Japan isn't alone in this.
- thomasahle 8y ago
  Yes, there's a plot at https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whaling#Greenland https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whaling#Greenland comparing Japan to Scandinavia. Japan used to whale way more than any other country though (pre 80's), so hopefully this move doesn't signal returning to those levels.
aurizon 8y ago
As far as I am concerned, as a Canadian, I would remove the 'most favored nation' status from Japan. This would add import duties to all Japanese imports to Canada. that would far exceed any whaling profits. If you can not persuade them peacefully, 'club them to the ground' by adding the USA to also deny them MFN status.
- sgift 8y ago
  Is that even (legally) possible as long as Canada and Japan are part of WTO?
- whitexn--g28h 8y ago
  Canada is not part of the IWC, we left in 1982. The aboriginal communities in our northern territories regularly hunt whales in small numbers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aboriginal_whaling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aboriginal_whaling
- joecool1029 8y ago
  As a Canadian you should probably first work on getting your country to stop overfishing tuna so the supply doesn't crash like cod did: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/our-failure-to-protect-the-bigeye-tuna-1.4912914 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/our-failure-to-pr...
  - monocasa 8y ago
    A country can work on several things at once.
- mrnobody_67 8y ago
  Is 'club them' a reference to the baby seal clubbing that happens in Canada?
Santosh83 8y ago
Disappointing. We share one planet. Nations need to be held accountable by each other for the amount of resources they consume and how they do so. And in this case whales are not even within Japanese territory...
- ahje 8y ago
  Well, according to the article: > Government spokesman Yoshihide Suga said commercial whaling would be restricted to Japanese territorial waters and economic zones. > As a result, Japan will stop hunting in Antarctic waters and the southern hemisphere, a prospect conservation groups had welcomed before it was formally confirmed. And: > Japan offered a package of measures, including setting up a Sustainable Whaling Committee and sustainable catch limits "for abundant whale stocks/species". > The proposal was voted down. In other words: Japan will keep the whaling within their own territorial water, and has indeed tried getting a consensus regarding quotas for sustainable whaling. Others refused to come to terms, so Japan has decided to do their own thing. I realise it's an unpopular opinion to have, but wouldn't regulated and sustainable whaling be better than various rogue states? It's not this is going to result in anything but criticism from other countries anyway, so blocking a desiscion on sustainable whaling will only result in others doing what Japan does.
- v_lisivka 8y ago
  We need to international agreement to stop hunting wild animal outside of the country territory. However, if even one nation will disobey it, it will not work. To make it work, we need to _force_ all nations to obey common law, i.e. we need central government with forces. It doesn't look doable without one or two world wide wars. And the global exchaution of resources is the fastest way to perform these wars. So, to win, we need to create mess first, then clean up.
  - lenkite 8y ago
    You are of-course assuming that a) anyone will care to wage a world war over whales, b) the 'right' side will win such a world war and c) A victory in such a war will be any better than defeat with irradiated lands and oceans. But yes, in principle you are right - a common world government will need a world war. Such a government will also, by necessity, need to be a un-elected tyranny in order to exist as a common world government.
temeritatis 8y ago
People often defend these kind of acts with the rationale that it is a culture heritage. If so, shouldn't they be sailing the ocean with traditional wooden sailboats and relying only on wind and currents to take them where they should go?
- rblion 8y ago
  This would make too much sense
- omnius19 8y ago
  I generally see that rational applied to whaling only when discussing indigenous populations such as the Inuit in Alaska. They are whaling in small boats and canoes using traditional techniques. Japan’s excuse for whaling is “scientific study.” I don’t think they are claiming to whale for cultural reasons, nor are they whaling for subsistence, which is allowed under international law. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aboriginal_whaling https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aboriginal_whaling
  - cavanasm 8y ago
    No, they're explicitly dropping the scientific study excuse, and using culture now. They're also only going to be whaling in their economic exclusion zone now, rather than going potentially thousands of miles.
    - el_nahual 8y ago
      Not exactly meaningful when talking about highly migratory species!
      - ngngngng 8y ago
        And way less fun for making edgy TV shows about stopping them.
  - roel_v 8y ago
    No,they used to claim science, but the revent announcement is explicitly about it not being for research any more, and the ban on selling whale meat is also lifted.
fromdowntown 8y ago
Well they never really stopped, they just claimed it would be used for research and the meat was sold after the research was done. From the article "Japan has caught between about 200 and 1,200 whales each year, saying it is investigating stock levels to see whether the whales are endangered or not."
javagram 8y ago
According to the article “ Pro-whaling nations expected the moratorium to be temporary, until consensus could be reached on sustainable catch quotas.” If this fishing is truly sustainable and doesn’t threaten the whales with extinction there shouldn’t be a problem. Why should whales get protection that pigs, cows, and other animals don’t?
- nnutter 8y ago
  If you didn’t make them you don’t get to eat them?
  - sildur 8y ago
    You should not eat fish from the sea, then.
    - _ph_ 8y ago
      At least, we should eat much less fish from the sea. With fishing, as with hunting, the limits need to be what the eco system can sustain. The sad part is, due to our overfishing, the sustainable fishing rates are much lower today than they would have been 100 years ago. If we had not overfished, we could fish much more than we should today. Same applies to whaling in much stronger form.
  - ineedasername 8y ago
    I think a better way to state the premise more reasonably is to say that you don't get to engage in hunting/harvesting practices that risk extinction of the species. That is a position that can be logically consistent with both claims "Farming domesticated animals is okay" and "Whaling is a practice that should be heavily regulated with careful quotas"
- akiselev 8y ago
  Are you serious? Because a pig or calf can be bought for a few hundred bucks, few thousand tops, and raised in a suburban back yard. Because there is zero chance they are keystone species. An adult sperm whale weighs over 100 tons and eats about a ton a day. Do you not see the practical implications of that with regards to irreversible damage? Edit: missed the sustainable part of your post. Whaling afaik can't be sustainable because the demand in Japan is high enough that whale populations simply can't replenish fast enough. They have a very slow reproductive and nurturing cycle.
ajmurmann 8y ago
Can we please have a global moratorium on all fishing for a few years? We are fishing the seas empty. I'm more than happy to pay for my share of the unsold/uncaught fish. This is such a disheartening example of the tragedy of the commons.
- wolco 8y ago
  No, that would be an over reaction that will harm more than it helps. Controls are important but stop all legal fishing is not the answer.
  - ajmurmann 8y ago
    For years I tried to only buy "sustainable" fish. It's almost impossible. Different lists give you different criteria. So much fish is endangered. So much fishing happens in ways that fish that's not even desired gets caught and thrown back in dead. Worth, some fishing techniques even damage the sea bed itself. On top of that most fish in stores is mislabeled making it downright impossible to enjoy fish without ruining the planet.
    - tonyedgecombe 8y ago
      Ultimately we are removing too much biomass from the sea, fish isn't a sustainable food source at the scale we remove it.
    - dawnerd 8y ago
      That’s why I don’t eat fish or any product containing fish. Simply can’t trust it.
    - nradov 8y ago
      Do you consider the Seafood Watch program inadequate? http://www.seafoodwatch.org/ http://www.seafoodwatch.org/
  - vertexFarm 8y ago
    I completely disagree. We are reaching a point where it would be incredibly difficult to do more harm than inaction. If we continue the way we're going now, there is going to be a moment in the future where a thermonuclear war would have been less harmful in the long run because it would have put a damper on our industry. It'll eventually get that bad, as horrible and unthinkable as that is. Wouldn't that just be unbearably ironic? If we end up regretting that the cold war never went hot because our daily habits are even worse on a long timeline? We've already done damage that's difficult to even comprehend. There's dead zones all over the map, where there's nothing but a bunch of algae and isopods crawling around in the mud and bones on the sea floor. These are enormous amounts of surface area, but they also represent a huge depth, so it's actually a volume of completely ruined wilderness. It's many, many times worse than an equivalent amount of acreage on land turned barren. We don't really have the daily context to understand what a loss that is. If we cause a collapse of the ocean ecosystems, we are truly and fully ruined. People like to think that rational responses to situations are always moderate and level-headed, but that depends on context. The rational response to what's happening in this context is to freak the fuck out. Literally any sacrifice is going to be worth averting this kind of catastrophe. We are quite literally like the frog which is slowly boiling in the pot; we are slowly boiling ourselves, but it's a generational process so nobody ever thinks it's time for drastic measures. We're not looking at a choice between winning or losing; we're looking at the difference between extinction and cataclysm. The choice between a death toll of merely hundreds of millions vs. billions. It's extremely likely that this situation is going to end both of our family lines at some point in the next several generations. It's awful, but unless we figure out time travel these are the choices we have.
chewz 8y ago
Well this is quite rational policy (tongue in cheek). As population of Japan is getting older and older it makes less and less sense to bother with longer term perspective on sustainability of the planet.
- michaelcampbell 8y ago
  On the "silver lining" side of that, is it conceivable that once this generation dies out the pressure for whale goods decreases? Is the younger generation also asking for this?
  - ethbro 8y ago
    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-35397749 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-35397749 But Junko Sakuma thinks the answer lies in the fact that Japan's whaling is government-run, a large bureaucracy with research budgets, annual plans, promotions and pensions. "If the number of staff in a bureaucrat's office decreases while they are in charge, they feel tremendous shame," she says. "Which means most of the bureaucrats will fight to keep the whaling section in their ministry at all costs. And that is true with the politicians as well. If the issue is closely related to their constituency, they will promise to bring back commercial whaling. It is a way of keeping their seats."
weakwire 8y ago
Waiting for the first person to mention Southpark.
- rdiddly 8y ago
  Whale Whores! Someone did make the point about chickens/cows/pigs though.
stevespang 8y ago
BOYCOTT Everything Japan
bravefoot 8y ago
As one commentator, Michael Cucek, pointed out (0), this could result in less whales being killed. There isn't that much of a market for whale in Japan and whaling operations have mostly been subsidised for "research" purposes. (0)https://mobile.twitter.com/MichaelTCucek/status/1075607243742097408 https://mobile.twitter.com/MichaelTCucek/status/107560724374...
- throwaway2048 8y ago
  That is one of the stupidest parts of all about this whole affair, nobody even wants whale meat in Japan, so the entire thing is just a senseless stunt.
maxxxxx 8y ago
I don't even eat meat but I find it difficult to be angry about this when at the same time at home we have millions (billions?) of farm animals live in absolutely terrible conditions. Reminds me a little of the outrage in CA about horse meat. There are plenty of people who think eating horse meat is morally wrong while at the same time they eat some salad with bacon on top. Why is a horse better than a pig? Certainly not because they are smarter. The only difference I see is that whales are more in the open while the suffering of farm animals is neatly hidden away from most of us. We should strive to treat animals much, much better but that should apply to all and not just to a few favored ones like whales while forgetting others.
- endangered 8y ago
  I don't think this is a fair comparison because we breed these animals for farming, so technically we could breed as many as we need to sustain our habits. On the other hand there is no way to breed whales. There is some finite number of them in the wild and we cannot actively endeavor to create more. Commercial farming of farm animals will not cause the extinction of farm animals; commercial farming of whales will cause the extinction of whales.
  - maxxxxx 8y ago
    " I don't think this is a fair comparison because we breed these animals for farming, so technically we could breed as many as we need to sustain our habits." They still suffer greatly. Maybe a little extreme but by the same logic we could breed humans for slavery and say that it's OK because they got bred for it. "commercial farming of whales will cause the extinction of whales. " Not if done with proper quotas. It's not different from any other type of fishing. Again, I don't even eat meat, but we should be a little more rational.
    - d0100 8y ago
      > Maybe a little extreme but by the same logic we could breed humans for slavery and say that it's OK because they got bred for it. The day an animal can articulate that, I'll agree with you. Until then such comparison bears no meaning.
kristofferR 8y ago
What's a sustainable level of whaling? Whale beef is totally delicious, but I'm wondering if Norways catch is sustainable and I can continue to enjoy it.
- vbuwivbiu 8y ago
  whales are definitely sentient, have language and culture - enjoy eating something else
  - gnulinux 8y ago
    I don't understand this "whales are definitely sentient" thing going around in this thread. How is this tested? What evidence do we have?
- pmden 8y ago
  Is there anything you could compare it to, for people who haven't had the chance? I'm vaguely aware the postwar British government promoted corned whale meat an unrationed alternative to normal meats, and that it (unsurprisingly) tasted quite like corned beef.
  - kristofferR 8y ago
    It tastes like a good steak, just with more umami and tenderness and perhaps a slight hint of fish oil, depending on how it's prepared. There's also something about its deep dark red wine color that feels luxurious. It's easy to avoiding the fish oil taste of you're careful.
CNJ7654 8y ago
In unrelated news, a new season of Whale Wars has been announced
siffland 8y ago
> Government spokesman Yoshihide Suga said commercial whaling would be restricted to Japanese territorial waters and economic zones. Someone needs to invent an underwater whale call (like a duck call) to lure the whales away from Japanese water.
jboxee 8y ago
with climate change, the jokes on them
avar 8y ago
The article really doesn't do a good job of explaining what's going on, in particular: > It means Japan will be able to freely hunt species currently protected by the IWC, like minke whales. Japan has already been hunting Minke whale, in 2016 they killed more than 300[1]. What's changing here is not the facts on the ground, but a maneuver in international diplomacy. Japan, Iceland and Norway have opposed the IWC's total ban on whaling. Japan has, until now, decided to work around this by claiming the whaling is "scientific", an obvious farce. It's been commercial whaling in all but name. Iceland and Norway have made no such claim, but issued commercial quotas in defiance of the moratorium. Now Japan is going to withdraw from the IWC entirely, which e.g. Canada did a long time ago[2] citing similar arguments. They're also going to restrict their whaling to their "territorial waters and economic zones", i.e. stop hunting in the Arctic. This was arguably the most controversial part of what they were doing before, e.g. Iceland and Norway don't hunt whales outside of their EEC. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whaling_in_Japan#Antarctica https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whaling_in_Japan#Antarctica 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Whaling_Commission#Allegation_of_politicising_science https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Whaling_Commissi...
kenneth 8y ago
Denouncing the consumption of meat from certain species of animals (like whales or dogs or foir gras) while happily eating burgers and chickens and tuna is utter hypocrisy. We need to work with Japan and other whaling countries to set sustainable quotas. But the condescending moral judgements need to end. There's nothing inherently different about eating a whale and a hundred chicken. Personally I try very hard not to be a hypocrite. I'll eat anything, and have tried many things people find objectionable (horse, whale, rabbit, shark, etc.). I know about myself that I'm not willing to go full vegetarian or vegan, and actively choose to eat meat. While I hate vegans that try to force their choice on others, I do appreciate the clarity and lack of hypocrisy of vegans who choose it for themselves. What I really hate is the hypocrisy of those who try to judge others for their choices while being no better themselves (meat eaters who complain about what other meats eaters eat)
- issa 8y ago
  This is much more complicated than it might initially seem. It can be argued that a whale can suffer at a higher level than a chicken can. Even though this clearly isn't your point, I agree wholeheartedly with your first sentence and I believe that we shouldn't kill any animals at all.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- gfodor 8y ago
  Is it hypocritical to know sugar is bad for you and eat candy sometimes? If so, does it mean you should just not try to avoid candy and eat as much as you please, since otherwise you'd be a hypocrite? I think it's much better to have a reasoned through moral viewpoint, and accept that you will try and often fail to live up to that standard. Don't judge others, but judge yourself. We live in a culture which eats meat, and so if you deem it morally wrong to eat meat, even partially going against the grain of wider society is a difficult but just act even if you fail to do so all the time. This is true for any social norm which you consider unjust. Just throwing your hands up and saying that you may as well just eat any once-living creature on equal terms since it means you won't be a hypocrite seems worse than deducing what ought to be the right way to behave and then try to build a framework to, perhaps only in-part, act towards that end. You may conclude that all creatures are the same, and continue your actions, but it sounds like you just consider the risk of being a hypocrite being an overriding concern. For me, I personally have tried to scale back my meat eating over time, since I believe it to be unclear how much animals suffer in farming conditions and how much they should have moral standing. I assume the degree to which these are true is somewhat proportional to how close these animals are in mental and physical form to humans. So, I no longer eat any mammals and increasingly try to prefer fish over birds. I began by cutting off pork (which I now can no longer stomach) and then beef. The net effect of this lifestyle may mean I am a "hypocrite", since I still eat animals and even occasionally just yield to the temptation to eat a burger, but it likely results in less net suffering, and may in the long term result in transitioning completely off of meat.
fujimotos 8y ago
Three facts. 1. Most of Japanese people have exactly zero interest about whaling. 2. Nor they do not understand why western people get so upset about it. ("What's so different with, say, tuna fishing?") 3. Anti-whaling protesters (e.g. Sea Shepherd) are really worsening the situation. Their "activism" (like stealing whale meats) is perceived as, at best, stupid. This is really a communication problem, guys. Whaling could have been ended many years ago, if no one made such a big deal out of it.
- arcticfox 8y ago
  > This is really a communication problem, guys. Whaling could have been ended many years ago, if no one made such a big deal out of it. I don't follow that conclusion at all. Really doesn't seem like that's how it would have played out to me; maybe it wouldn't have been worse than it is today, but I can't imagine they were simply being encouraged to whale to be ornery.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
DyslexicAtheist 8y ago
deleted
- dang 8y ago
  Please don't advocate violence here.
myrandomcomment 8y ago
There is zero reason for whaling in Japan beyond the governments desire to protect a dying industry and a political need to look strong to conservative / right wing / nationalist voters. I have spent a considerable amount of time in Japan (collectively nearly 3 years) and visit once a month for work. None of my Japanese friends or colleagues will eat whale. They find the whole thing silly and feel the industry should just end. Their collective ages are between 30 to 70 and they represent a good cross section of backgrounds. This is a nitch right wing issue.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

207 points by kn8 8y ago

lm2s 8y ago

Just recently I learned that Japan is not the only country that hunts whales. It seems Norway also does it and to a larger scale. This isn't an excuse for Japan, just sharing this info for others that might unaware that Japan isn't alone in this.

thomasahle 8y ago
Yes, there's a plot at https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whaling#Greenland https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whaling#Greenland comparing Japan to Scandinavia. Japan used to whale way more than any other country though (pre 80's), so hopefully this move doesn't signal returning to those levels.

aurizon 8y ago

As far as I am concerned, as a Canadian, I would remove the 'most favored nation' status from Japan. This would add import duties to all Japanese imports to Canada. that would far exceed any whaling profits. If you can not persuade them peacefully, 'club them to the ground' by adding the USA to also deny them MFN status.

sgift 8y ago
Is that even (legally) possible as long as Canada and Japan are part of WTO?
whitexn--g28h 8y ago
Canada is not part of the IWC, we left in 1982. The aboriginal communities in our northern territories regularly hunt whales in small numbers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aboriginal_whaling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aboriginal_whaling
joecool1029 8y ago
As a Canadian you should probably first work on getting your country to stop overfishing tuna so the supply doesn't crash like cod did: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/our-failure-to-protect-the-bigeye-tuna-1.4912914 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/our-failure-to-pr...
- monocasa 8y ago
  A country can work on several things at once.
mrnobody_67 8y ago
Is 'club them' a reference to the baby seal clubbing that happens in Canada?

Santosh83 8y ago

Disappointing. We share one planet. Nations need to be held accountable by each other for the amount of resources they consume and how they do so. And in this case whales are not even within Japanese territory...

ahje 8y ago
Well, according to the article: > Government spokesman Yoshihide Suga said commercial whaling would be restricted to Japanese territorial waters and economic zones. > As a result, Japan will stop hunting in Antarctic waters and the southern hemisphere, a prospect conservation groups had welcomed before it was formally confirmed. And: > Japan offered a package of measures, including setting up a Sustainable Whaling Committee and sustainable catch limits "for abundant whale stocks/species". > The proposal was voted down. In other words: Japan will keep the whaling within their own territorial water, and has indeed tried getting a consensus regarding quotas for sustainable whaling. Others refused to come to terms, so Japan has decided to do their own thing. I realise it's an unpopular opinion to have, but wouldn't regulated and sustainable whaling be better than various rogue states? It's not this is going to result in anything but criticism from other countries anyway, so blocking a desiscion on sustainable whaling will only result in others doing what Japan does.
v_lisivka 8y ago
We need to international agreement to stop hunting wild animal outside of the country territory. However, if even one nation will disobey it, it will not work. To make it work, we need to _force_ all nations to obey common law, i.e. we need central government with forces. It doesn't look doable without one or two world wide wars. And the global exchaution of resources is the fastest way to perform these wars. So, to win, we need to create mess first, then clean up.
- lenkite 8y ago
  You are of-course assuming that a) anyone will care to wage a world war over whales, b) the 'right' side will win such a world war and c) A victory in such a war will be any better than defeat with irradiated lands and oceans. But yes, in principle you are right - a common world government will need a world war. Such a government will also, by necessity, need to be a un-elected tyranny in order to exist as a common world government.

temeritatis 8y ago

People often defend these kind of acts with the rationale that it is a culture heritage. If so, shouldn't they be sailing the ocean with traditional wooden sailboats and relying only on wind and currents to take them where they should go?

rblion 8y ago
This would make too much sense
omnius19 8y ago
I generally see that rational applied to whaling only when discussing indigenous populations such as the Inuit in Alaska. They are whaling in small boats and canoes using traditional techniques. Japan’s excuse for whaling is “scientific study.” I don’t think they are claiming to whale for cultural reasons, nor are they whaling for subsistence, which is allowed under international law. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aboriginal_whaling https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aboriginal_whaling
- cavanasm 8y ago
  No, they're explicitly dropping the scientific study excuse, and using culture now. They're also only going to be whaling in their economic exclusion zone now, rather than going potentially thousands of miles.
  - el_nahual 8y ago
    Not exactly meaningful when talking about highly migratory species!
    - ngngngng 8y ago
      And way less fun for making edgy TV shows about stopping them.
- roel_v 8y ago
  No,they used to claim science, but the revent announcement is explicitly about it not being for research any more, and the ban on selling whale meat is also lifted.

fromdowntown 8y ago

Well they never really stopped, they just claimed it would be used for research and the meat was sold after the research was done. From the article "Japan has caught between about 200 and 1,200 whales each year, saying it is investigating stock levels to see whether the whales are endangered or not."

javagram 8y ago

According to the article “ Pro-whaling nations expected the moratorium to be temporary, until consensus could be reached on sustainable catch quotas.” If this fishing is truly sustainable and doesn’t threaten the whales with extinction there shouldn’t be a problem. Why should whales get protection that pigs, cows, and other animals don’t?

nnutter 8y ago
If you didn’t make them you don’t get to eat them?
- sildur 8y ago
  You should not eat fish from the sea, then.
  - _ph_ 8y ago
    At least, we should eat much less fish from the sea. With fishing, as with hunting, the limits need to be what the eco system can sustain. The sad part is, due to our overfishing, the sustainable fishing rates are much lower today than they would have been 100 years ago. If we had not overfished, we could fish much more than we should today. Same applies to whaling in much stronger form.
- ineedasername 8y ago
  I think a better way to state the premise more reasonably is to say that you don't get to engage in hunting/harvesting practices that risk extinction of the species. That is a position that can be logically consistent with both claims "Farming domesticated animals is okay" and "Whaling is a practice that should be heavily regulated with careful quotas"
akiselev 8y ago
Are you serious? Because a pig or calf can be bought for a few hundred bucks, few thousand tops, and raised in a suburban back yard. Because there is zero chance they are keystone species. An adult sperm whale weighs over 100 tons and eats about a ton a day. Do you not see the practical implications of that with regards to irreversible damage? Edit: missed the sustainable part of your post. Whaling afaik can't be sustainable because the demand in Japan is high enough that whale populations simply can't replenish fast enough. They have a very slow reproductive and nurturing cycle.

ajmurmann 8y ago

Can we please have a global moratorium on all fishing for a few years? We are fishing the seas empty. I'm more than happy to pay for my share of the unsold/uncaught fish. This is such a disheartening example of the tragedy of the commons.

wolco 8y ago
No, that would be an over reaction that will harm more than it helps. Controls are important but stop all legal fishing is not the answer.
- ajmurmann 8y ago
  For years I tried to only buy "sustainable" fish. It's almost impossible. Different lists give you different criteria. So much fish is endangered. So much fishing happens in ways that fish that's not even desired gets caught and thrown back in dead. Worth, some fishing techniques even damage the sea bed itself. On top of that most fish in stores is mislabeled making it downright impossible to enjoy fish without ruining the planet.
  - tonyedgecombe 8y ago
    Ultimately we are removing too much biomass from the sea, fish isn't a sustainable food source at the scale we remove it.
  - dawnerd 8y ago
    That’s why I don’t eat fish or any product containing fish. Simply can’t trust it.
  - nradov 8y ago
    Do you consider the Seafood Watch program inadequate? http://www.seafoodwatch.org/ http://www.seafoodwatch.org/
- vertexFarm 8y ago
  I completely disagree. We are reaching a point where it would be incredibly difficult to do more harm than inaction. If we continue the way we're going now, there is going to be a moment in the future where a thermonuclear war would have been less harmful in the long run because it would have put a damper on our industry. It'll eventually get that bad, as horrible and unthinkable as that is. Wouldn't that just be unbearably ironic? If we end up regretting that the cold war never went hot because our daily habits are even worse on a long timeline? We've already done damage that's difficult to even comprehend. There's dead zones all over the map, where there's nothing but a bunch of algae and isopods crawling around in the mud and bones on the sea floor. These are enormous amounts of surface area, but they also represent a huge depth, so it's actually a volume of completely ruined wilderness. It's many, many times worse than an equivalent amount of acreage on land turned barren. We don't really have the daily context to understand what a loss that is. If we cause a collapse of the ocean ecosystems, we are truly and fully ruined. People like to think that rational responses to situations are always moderate and level-headed, but that depends on context. The rational response to what's happening in this context is to freak the fuck out. Literally any sacrifice is going to be worth averting this kind of catastrophe. We are quite literally like the frog which is slowly boiling in the pot; we are slowly boiling ourselves, but it's a generational process so nobody ever thinks it's time for drastic measures. We're not looking at a choice between winning or losing; we're looking at the difference between extinction and cataclysm. The choice between a death toll of merely hundreds of millions vs. billions. It's extremely likely that this situation is going to end both of our family lines at some point in the next several generations. It's awful, but unless we figure out time travel these are the choices we have.

chewz 8y ago

Well this is quite rational policy (tongue in cheek). As population of Japan is getting older and older it makes less and less sense to bother with longer term perspective on sustainability of the planet.

michaelcampbell 8y ago
On the "silver lining" side of that, is it conceivable that once this generation dies out the pressure for whale goods decreases? Is the younger generation also asking for this?
- ethbro 8y ago
  https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-35397749 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-35397749 But Junko Sakuma thinks the answer lies in the fact that Japan's whaling is government-run, a large bureaucracy with research budgets, annual plans, promotions and pensions. "If the number of staff in a bureaucrat's office decreases while they are in charge, they feel tremendous shame," she says. "Which means most of the bureaucrats will fight to keep the whaling section in their ministry at all costs. And that is true with the politicians as well. If the issue is closely related to their constituency, they will promise to bring back commercial whaling. It is a way of keeping their seats."

weakwire 8y ago

Waiting for the first person to mention Southpark.

rdiddly 8y ago
Whale Whores! Someone did make the point about chickens/cows/pigs though.

stevespang 8y ago

BOYCOTT Everything Japan

bravefoot 8y ago

As one commentator, Michael Cucek, pointed out (0), this could result in less whales being killed. There isn't that much of a market for whale in Japan and whaling operations have mostly been subsidised for "research" purposes. (0)https://mobile.twitter.com/MichaelTCucek/status/1075607243742097408 https://mobile.twitter.com/MichaelTCucek/status/107560724374...

throwaway2048 8y ago
That is one of the stupidest parts of all about this whole affair, nobody even wants whale meat in Japan, so the entire thing is just a senseless stunt.

maxxxxx 8y ago

I don't even eat meat but I find it difficult to be angry about this when at the same time at home we have millions (billions?) of farm animals live in absolutely terrible conditions. Reminds me a little of the outrage in CA about horse meat. There are plenty of people who think eating horse meat is morally wrong while at the same time they eat some salad with bacon on top. Why is a horse better than a pig? Certainly not because they are smarter. The only difference I see is that whales are more in the open while the suffering of farm animals is neatly hidden away from most of us. We should strive to treat animals much, much better but that should apply to all and not just to a few favored ones like whales while forgetting others.

endangered 8y ago
I don't think this is a fair comparison because we breed these animals for farming, so technically we could breed as many as we need to sustain our habits. On the other hand there is no way to breed whales. There is some finite number of them in the wild and we cannot actively endeavor to create more. Commercial farming of farm animals will not cause the extinction of farm animals; commercial farming of whales will cause the extinction of whales.
- maxxxxx 8y ago
  " I don't think this is a fair comparison because we breed these animals for farming, so technically we could breed as many as we need to sustain our habits." They still suffer greatly. Maybe a little extreme but by the same logic we could breed humans for slavery and say that it's OK because they got bred for it. "commercial farming of whales will cause the extinction of whales. " Not if done with proper quotas. It's not different from any other type of fishing. Again, I don't even eat meat, but we should be a little more rational.
  - d0100 8y ago
    > Maybe a little extreme but by the same logic we could breed humans for slavery and say that it's OK because they got bred for it. The day an animal can articulate that, I'll agree with you. Until then such comparison bears no meaning.

kristofferR 8y ago

What's a sustainable level of whaling? Whale beef is totally delicious, but I'm wondering if Norways catch is sustainable and I can continue to enjoy it.

vbuwivbiu 8y ago
whales are definitely sentient, have language and culture - enjoy eating something else
- gnulinux 8y ago
  I don't understand this "whales are definitely sentient" thing going around in this thread. How is this tested? What evidence do we have?
pmden 8y ago
Is there anything you could compare it to, for people who haven't had the chance? I'm vaguely aware the postwar British government promoted corned whale meat an unrationed alternative to normal meats, and that it (unsurprisingly) tasted quite like corned beef.
- kristofferR 8y ago
  It tastes like a good steak, just with more umami and tenderness and perhaps a slight hint of fish oil, depending on how it's prepared. There's also something about its deep dark red wine color that feels luxurious. It's easy to avoiding the fish oil taste of you're careful.

CNJ7654 8y ago

In unrelated news, a new season of Whale Wars has been announced

siffland 8y ago

> Government spokesman Yoshihide Suga said commercial whaling would be restricted to Japanese territorial waters and economic zones. Someone needs to invent an underwater whale call (like a duck call) to lure the whales away from Japanese water.

jboxee 8y ago

with climate change, the jokes on them

avar 8y ago

The article really doesn't do a good job of explaining what's going on, in particular: > It means Japan will be able to freely hunt species currently protected by the IWC, like minke whales. Japan has already been hunting Minke whale, in 2016 they killed more than 300[1]. What's changing here is not the facts on the ground, but a maneuver in international diplomacy. Japan, Iceland and Norway have opposed the IWC's total ban on whaling. Japan has, until now, decided to work around this by claiming the whaling is "scientific", an obvious farce. It's been commercial whaling in all but name. Iceland and Norway have made no such claim, but issued commercial quotas in defiance of the moratorium. Now Japan is going to withdraw from the IWC entirely, which e.g. Canada did a long time ago[2] citing similar arguments. They're also going to restrict their whaling to their "territorial waters and economic zones", i.e. stop hunting in the Arctic. This was arguably the most controversial part of what they were doing before, e.g. Iceland and Norway don't hunt whales outside of their EEC. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whaling_in_Japan#Antarctica https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whaling_in_Japan#Antarctica 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Whaling_Commission#Allegation_of_politicising_science https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Whaling_Commissi...

kenneth 8y ago

Denouncing the consumption of meat from certain species of animals (like whales or dogs or foir gras) while happily eating burgers and chickens and tuna is utter hypocrisy. We need to work with Japan and other whaling countries to set sustainable quotas. But the condescending moral judgements need to end. There's nothing inherently different about eating a whale and a hundred chicken. Personally I try very hard not to be a hypocrite. I'll eat anything, and have tried many things people find objectionable (horse, whale, rabbit, shark, etc.). I know about myself that I'm not willing to go full vegetarian or vegan, and actively choose to eat meat. While I hate vegans that try to force their choice on others, I do appreciate the clarity and lack of hypocrisy of vegans who choose it for themselves. What I really hate is the hypocrisy of those who try to judge others for their choices while being no better themselves (meat eaters who complain about what other meats eaters eat)

issa 8y ago
This is much more complicated than it might initially seem. It can be argued that a whale can suffer at a higher level than a chicken can. Even though this clearly isn't your point, I agree wholeheartedly with your first sentence and I believe that we shouldn't kill any animals at all.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
gfodor 8y ago
Is it hypocritical to know sugar is bad for you and eat candy sometimes? If so, does it mean you should just not try to avoid candy and eat as much as you please, since otherwise you'd be a hypocrite? I think it's much better to have a reasoned through moral viewpoint, and accept that you will try and often fail to live up to that standard. Don't judge others, but judge yourself. We live in a culture which eats meat, and so if you deem it morally wrong to eat meat, even partially going against the grain of wider society is a difficult but just act even if you fail to do so all the time. This is true for any social norm which you consider unjust. Just throwing your hands up and saying that you may as well just eat any once-living creature on equal terms since it means you won't be a hypocrite seems worse than deducing what ought to be the right way to behave and then try to build a framework to, perhaps only in-part, act towards that end. You may conclude that all creatures are the same, and continue your actions, but it sounds like you just consider the risk of being a hypocrite being an overriding concern. For me, I personally have tried to scale back my meat eating over time, since I believe it to be unclear how much animals suffer in farming conditions and how much they should have moral standing. I assume the degree to which these are true is somewhat proportional to how close these animals are in mental and physical form to humans. So, I no longer eat any mammals and increasingly try to prefer fish over birds. I began by cutting off pork (which I now can no longer stomach) and then beef. The net effect of this lifestyle may mean I am a "hypocrite", since I still eat animals and even occasionally just yield to the temptation to eat a burger, but it likely results in less net suffering, and may in the long term result in transitioning completely off of meat.

fujimotos 8y ago

Three facts. 1. Most of Japanese people have exactly zero interest about whaling. 2. Nor they do not understand why western people get so upset about it. ("What's so different with, say, tuna fishing?") 3. Anti-whaling protesters (e.g. Sea Shepherd) are really worsening the situation. Their "activism" (like stealing whale meats) is perceived as, at best, stupid. This is really a communication problem, guys. Whaling could have been ended many years ago, if no one made such a big deal out of it.

arcticfox 8y ago
> This is really a communication problem, guys. Whaling could have been ended many years ago, if no one made such a big deal out of it. I don't follow that conclusion at all. Really doesn't seem like that's how it would have played out to me; maybe it wouldn't have been worse than it is today, but I can't imagine they were simply being encouraged to whale to be ornery.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

DyslexicAtheist 8y ago

deleted

dang 8y ago
Please don't advocate violence here.

myrandomcomment 8y ago

There is zero reason for whaling in Japan beyond the governments desire to protect a dying industry and a political need to look strong to conservative / right wing / nationalist voters. I have spent a considerable amount of time in Japan (collectively nearly 3 years) and visit once a month for work. None of my Japanese friends or colleagues will eat whale. They find the whole thing silly and feel the industry should just end. Their collective ages are between 30 to 70 and they represent a good cross section of backgrounds. This is a nitch right wing issue.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]