SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the ♪but-there-ain't-no-whales-so-we-tell-tall-tales-and-sing-this-whaling-tune♫ dept.
Japan says it's time to allow sustainable whaling
Few conservation issues generate as emotional a response as whaling. Are we now about to see countries killing whales for profit again? Commercial whaling has been effectively banned for more than 30 years, after some whales were driven almost to extinction. But the International Whaling Committee (IWC) is currently meeting in Brazil and next week will give its verdict on a proposal from Japan to end the ban.
[...] IWC members agreed to a moratorium on hunting in 1986, to allow whale stocks to recover. Pro-whaling nations expected the moratorium to be temporary, until consensus could be reached on sustainable catch quotas. Instead, it became a quasi-permanent ban, to the delight of conservationists but the dismay of whaling nations like Japan, Norway and Iceland who argue that whaling is part of their culture and should continue in a sustainable way.
But by using an exception in the ban that allows for whaling for scientific purposes, Japan has caught between about 200 and 1,200 whales every year. since, including young and pregnant animals.
[...] Hideki Moronuki, Japan's senior fisheries negotiator and commissioner for the IWC, told the BBC that Japan wants the IWC to get back to its original purpose - both conserving whales but also "the sustainable use of whales". [...] Japan, the current chair of the IWC, is suggesting a package of measures, including setting up a Sustainable Whaling Committee and setting sustainable catch limits "for abundant whale stocks/species". As an incentive to anti-whaling nations, the proposals would also make it easier to establish new whale sanctuaries.
Previously: Japan to Resume Whaling, Fleet Sails to Antarctic Tuesday
122 Pregnant Minke Whales Killed in Japan's Last Hunting Season
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 07 2018, @07:36PM (27 children)
I think it's crazy how so many westerners have an issue with whaling.
Weirder still is when they put up some sort of challenge to us normal people, saying that we couldn't eat meat if we saw the killing. There is this idea that we outsource to slaughterhouses because we can't bear the thought of what is happening, and we must somehow have is disguised in styrofoam and plastic wrap. Nope. I've killed lots of things, and eaten a bunch of it, but that isn't my career any more than roadwork is. (nor is it a "job Americans won't do", but we all take the best pay/effort ratio we can manage, and businesses take the best they can get from their perspective)
Whales are made of meat. Everything made of meat is delicious, excepting koalas. I guess I'd hesitate due to mercury content, as I'd hesitate to eat a chimpanzee due to viruses and prions, but meat is normally delicious.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by archfeld on Friday September 07 2018, @07:57PM (18 children)
My objection to whaling is the probability that whales are/will be determined to be sentient, along with dolphins and the higher order apes.
Bender: Who wants dolphin? [The crew gasps.]
Leela: Dolphin? But dolphins are intelligent!
Bender: Not this one. He blew all his money on lottery tickets!
For the NSA : Explosives, guns, assassination, conspiracy, primers, detonators, initiators, main charge, nuclear charge
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday September 07 2018, @08:02PM (5 children)
Geez how many Futurama refs can we pack into this story?
So... anyone watch Disenchantment?
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 07 2018, @08:10PM (3 children)
All of the Star Trek fans died off
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Friday September 07 2018, @08:52PM
Fascinating.
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Friday September 07 2018, @09:17PM (1 child)
Shouldn't that be "He's dead, Jim."
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 07 2018, @10:50PM
"He's cooked, Jim."
Or, "Dammit, Jim, I'm a doctor, not a sous chef!"
(Score: 0, Troll) by Ethanol-fueled on Saturday September 08 2018, @01:13AM
Meh. Groening and Groening-derived shows are good, but I won't give them a chance until I'm certain that their political mentality makes fun of everybody equally and thus has left the Obama era.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by acid andy on Friday September 07 2018, @08:36PM (6 children)
The way you phrase that implies that you think it probable that most animals are not sentient. If so, this strikes me as silly. Shouldn't the default assumption be that they are, given that we are animals? To discuss this in more depth, we'd also need to agree on a definition of sentience.
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 07 2018, @09:23PM (1 child)
A definition of sentience is nearly pointless. It is probably shades of grey.
If that mattered, then... are there fetuses we can eat? Is it OK to impregnate women in order to create tasty meals? What about people in vegetative states? If somebody gets a bad case of dementia, can we eat them?
It sounds like we aren't going to draw the line at sentience. Whale is on the menu.
(Score: 4, Informative) by acid andy on Friday September 07 2018, @10:27PM
OK, I'll bite (pun not intended ;) ).
Most probably. That's why it's better, ethically, to only eat those things that seem mostly likely to correspond to the darkest shades of grey possible (the least sentience).
I draw the line at total abstention from all food sources, as my own suffering counts too, so I still eat plants. Hypothetically, if food could be entirely generated through chemical processes without involving cellular life at all, I might be tempted to switch to that, provided it wasn't too expensive, was tasty, and had everything the body needs.
Not sure if this is just plain trolling, but, it's not clear cut how sentient each of those cases is, so sentience could still be relevant. However, even if there's no sentience, I'm sure people will raise other concerns involving such practices violating social norms, offending people (perhaps violating the memory of a friend or family member), or breaking religious conventions.
Not precisely at the boundary, no. But things we consider likely to have a high degree of sentience should probably be off the menu. Also, as stated above, people will usually want some things with questionable or no sentience to be off the menu too, for a variety of reasons.
Not in this restaurant.
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
(Score: 2) by archfeld on Saturday September 08 2018, @04:34AM
You have a valid point. I am not sure where to draw the line. Any creature that exists is technically sentient, I guess I am making excuses for my decidedly omnivorous nature. I think perhaps the ability to perceive events and action from a perspective outside of oneself and the long term effects of such actions. Cause and effect. Either way I am still enjoying a hamburger and fries while not eating a dolphin or a whale.
For the NSA : Explosives, guns, assassination, conspiracy, primers, detonators, initiators, main charge, nuclear charge
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Arik on Saturday September 08 2018, @12:32PM (2 children)
The right yardstick is whether or not understandings can be reached, and whether or not moral agency can be demonstrated. If pigs were capable of communicating, then we could make a deal not to eat each other. But lacking that capability, we know they will eat us whether we eat them or not. Recognition of rights is bilateral. You are obligated not to kill your neighbor *because* your neighbor is obligated not to kill you as well. If your neighbor comes to kill you, he breaches the peace, he breaches the obligation - and in doing so he ends it for you as well.
With the pig, there's just no effective way for this to be bilateral. The pig will kill you and eat you if he can. There's no point in blaming him for it, there's no point in calling him names, that's just what a pig is. You can't obligate him. He isn't bound by your rules, and you can't make him be bound by them.
That being so, it's nonsense to think he can obligate you. It works both ways. It's not immoral for the pig to eat you - so it's also not immoral for you to eat the pig. (Not that I'm recommending you do that either - I'm just explaining why I wouldn't support outlawing it.)
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Sunday September 09 2018, @01:41AM (1 child)
An eye for an eye just makes us all blind. You should turn the other cheek.
I can see where you are coming from, but I still don't agree that a human, animal or any other kind of entity has to be able to understand rights in order to have any. Elsewhere you made a point about the rights of children. A newborn baby is a good example. I agree it wouldn't work well for them to have criminal responsibility or be allowed to drive cars, for example. But they cannot engage in a debate about their rights and yet any reasonable person would accept that they should have them. The right not to be attacked or killed are a couple of obvious examples.
I could go further -- it could be considered unethical to drain a lake or destroy a mountain -- when these natural entities almost certainly have minimal sentience. You could frame these ethics in terms of their having a "right" to exist. I realize I may be stretching the concept here, but it's worth remembering that even if you don't allow animals to have "rights" in the way that you define them, that doesn't make it ethical to kill or mistreat them.
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
(Score: 2) by Arik on Sunday September 09 2018, @02:05AM
This is true, but they have something important that none of the non-humans can claim. They are extremely likely to *become* moral agents in a short period of time. It's demonstrable that this happens constantly, young children become older children, then adolescents, then adults. And if their development is not completely stunted, this means they become moral agents - certainly by adolescence, if not even before.
There's not a single recorded instance of a pig, or a dog, or a whale doing the same.
"I could go further -- it could be considered unethical to drain a lake or destroy a mountain"
Why?
That seems a profoundly stark claim that simply demands some sort of evidence or argument, rather than a bare assertion.
If it's unethical to destroy a mountain or a lake, why not say the same of a hill or a pond?
Landscaping qua landscaping is an *ethical* problem now?
"it's worth remembering that even if you don't allow animals to have "rights" in the way that you define them, that doesn't make it ethical to kill or mistreat them."
Absolutely. I do not advocate mistreating any animal, for any reason. Inflicting more pain than necessary on another living being is an act that damages the actor. It's the moral equivalent of cutting, it's almost a form of suicide. You don't need to believe animals have rights to treat all living things with respect.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by NewNic on Friday September 07 2018, @11:44PM (1 child)
How about this argument: it's not ethical to kill animals unless we need to control the population or we intend to eat the meat?
Japan's reasons for hunting whales is more of a "FU" to the West these days. Japanese people no longer want to eat whale meat.
https://www.wired.com/2015/12/japanese-barely-eat-whale-whaling-big-deal/ [wired.com]
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 09 2018, @05:49AM
It was perfectly fine back when jolly old England went a-whaling. Shiploads of Britain's dodgiest loaded up and based themselves in places like Russell, New Zealand - to great havoc on whales and the locals alike. But anyone ELSE but that Empire, and we have to protest, loud and long.
Personally, I hate the idea of whaling by anyone for any purpose at all. Those times are long gone and should be kept record of only in history.
(Score: 2) by wisnoskij on Saturday September 08 2018, @09:50PM (2 children)
We are determining that many humans are not even conscious [1 [psychologytoday.com]][2 [scientificamerican.com]]. So you believe the stupidest among us should be treated worse because of their deficits?
(Score: 1) by The Vocal Minority on Sunday September 09 2018, @06:51AM (1 child)
That is not the conclusion of either of the magazine articles you referenced.
(Score: 2) by wisnoskij on Sunday September 09 2018, @01:06PM
I disagree.
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 07 2018, @08:29PM (1 child)
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 07 2018, @09:40PM
Im sure most every hunter has hesrd of that, but youre giving most of them way too much credit. They would shoot whatever with no thoughts about sustainability.
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Friday September 07 2018, @08:39PM (1 child)
Is it possible you just have lower levels of empathy than "many westerners"? How, for example, do you feel about humans killing other humans?
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 08 2018, @12:05AM
I don't think my level of empathy is all that low, but it is highly conditional.
Maybe that is normal. Most of the people on both sides of the political spectrum have opinions about execution and abortion that are clearly inconsistent if we only look at it as "humans killing other humans".
Most humans, westerners included, accept self-defense and many instances of war.
Many of the people who object to whaling would not hesitate to physically attack whalers. Some would gladly kill whalers.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 08 2018, @12:59AM (1 child)
Cows, pigs, & chickens, & fish are stupid. All they do is eat and shit, and they often lie in their shit. Pigs are a little smarter but they all exist for us to eat.
Whales are intelligent. Just because they haven't invented the wheel or fire doesn't mean we should go all out and slaughter them for some backwards desire to eat their flesh.
(Score: 2) by archfeld on Saturday September 08 2018, @04:45AM
Pigs are not stupid. They are quite intelligent, often more so than dogs or horses. That said I do love me some bacon, and eat it regularly. I've also eaten and appreciate horse meat but unless starving I'd have trouble eating a dog, or a rat, no matter how it was raised. In grade school we took a field trip to a slaughter house, and I was raised on a farm so I've seen firsthand where my food comes from and still I like a good ham sandwich, fried chicken is the bomb, and Marys' little veal or rack of lamb is delicious. Go figure...
For the NSA : Explosives, guns, assassination, conspiracy, primers, detonators, initiators, main charge, nuclear charge
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday September 08 2018, @12:43PM
You're made of meat too. Should it be ok to eat you? Somehow I don't buy that the only reasons not to eat people are because they taste bad and carry diseases.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 09 2018, @05:16AM
> Everything made of meat is delicious, excepting koalas.
Humans are made of meat too, I'd start with them. Their growth is sustainable, definitely least concerned when it comes to extinction.
SoylentGreen FTW!
(Score: 3, Disagree) by Arik on Friday September 07 2018, @07:41PM (28 children)
No. Those are not conservationists. Conservationists have no problem with sustainable harvest, by definition, that's their goal.
The people who this delighted were prohibitionists.
Anyways, good on you Japan. Don't give up.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 07 2018, @07:48PM (17 children)
whales are self-aware. I think it's wrong to eat self-aware beings if you have other sources of food.
and yes, that includes pigeons and apes and dolphins and, apparently, a fish https://phys.org/news/2018-09-small-fish-classic-self-awareness.html [phys.org] .
(Score: 2) by Arik on Friday September 07 2018, @08:26PM (16 children)
That's ok, you can go fully vegetarian, no big deal right?
I've got more bad news for you. Vegetables might be self-aware too. Probably best to give those up as well.
Hrmm, now what are you going to eat?
Anyway, if you think it's wrong to eat animals and you follow through on that and consistently don't eat animals that's fine, I respect that. But if you're playing these speciesist games like "ooh no I like whales you can't eat whales you barbarian! (goes back to chomping down on that bacon-burger)" then I would call it hypocrisy instead.
Either way, you don't really get to ban other people's food just because you don't like it. This is in the 'stuff you should have learned in kindergarten' category. It starts with you don't like our Japanese friend's whale, and then our Hindu friend doesn't like your beef, and the girl from HR that has the world's largest stuffed animal collection is triggered by my lamb, and about the time I look around and realize I have nothing left to eat I'm going to have no choice but to get triggered myself and banish all your bacon and pork chops cause I'm sure not going to sit here chewing on my spinach while y'all are enjoying your swine.
If you think a non-human animal is truly intelligent, then make contact with them. Prove you can communicate with them, make a deal. If they'll rescue the occasional shipwreck, maybe help us recover a body here and there, then we won't eat them. I'm sure even the Japanese would go along with that, if you could prove the deal was made and honoured. I bet the fishermen would flatly refuse to harm a whale ever again, if you could actually do what I asked and prove you had done it.
But without that they're fundamentally in the same category as lots of things that lots of people eat. They're smart, big-brained mammals. So are pigs.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 4, Funny) by acid andy on Friday September 07 2018, @08:47PM
You're damn right. Speciesism is exactly what it is. Though, strictly speaking, if you eat animals but stop short of cannibalism, then you're still a speciesist. I can see how it's a special case, favoring your own species, but you only have to look at the more commonly considered forms of discrimination to realize favoring one's own type is the most common form of it -- for example, racism against races other than one's own, sexism against gender(s) other than one's own, etc.
The only reasonable conclusion is that you're either OK with other beings suffering and dying to momentarily fill your belly, or you're not. Many people live in some sort of insecure denial, where they refuse to really think about these issues, or they find some spurious narrative after the fact to justify what they do.
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by acid andy on Saturday September 08 2018, @12:12AM (10 children)
You've just stumbled upon one of the key things that gets people like me so worked up about the need to defend animal rights. After decades of research it seems pretty clear that short of some sort of genetic engineering or cybernetic implantation, that likely would have ethical issues of its own, non-human animals aren't going to be able to communicate with us in the way we do with one another for the foreseeable future.
Generally speaking, in human society, the rights of those groups that were disadvantaged, had to be won, and that process heavily relies upon communication with that group. When someone repeatedly speaks out about their suffering or their unfair treatment, that's how people start to take notice, understand their plight and eventually take their rights seriously.
The other animals, therefore have a massive problem. They can't speak out. At least not in a way that the humans in charge take seriously. That's why people like me have to speak on their behalf.
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
(Score: 3, Disagree) by Arik on Saturday September 08 2018, @01:50AM (9 children)
What's really interesting here is that, instead of accepting that the facts don't support your position and changing your position, your response to realizing that the facts don't support your position is to dig in and double down on that position instead.
"The other animals, therefore have a massive problem. They can't speak out. At least not in a way that the humans in charge take seriously. That's why people like me have to speak on their behalf."
But you're not speaking out on their behalf. We know you are not, because you admit that you're not able to communicate with them. So they haven't asked you to represent them, they haven't agreed to you representing them, they haven't even so much as communicated their wishes to you in any way. Or to anyone else. You're not speaking on their behalf - you're just appropriating them as a front for your own wishes.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by khallow on Saturday September 08 2018, @12:49PM (6 children)
Circular argument. Plus, communication with another is not necessary in order to speak on their behalf.
Also, self-awareness is not a bit you set, but a matter of degree.
(Score: 1, Troll) by Arik on Saturday September 08 2018, @05:12PM (5 children)
I'm just going to leave that there and laugh.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by khallow on Saturday September 08 2018, @11:56PM (4 children)
Further, just how much communication is necessary to observe that whales don't like to be harpooned and killed?
(Score: 2) by Arik on Sunday September 09 2018, @12:54AM (3 children)
This is entirely different from the case where someone is, not just speaking *about* but explicitly speaking *for* someone who has never communicated with them in any way. Which is a claim that's absurd on its face, and deserves something more than uproarious laughter.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Sunday September 09 2018, @01:06AM (1 child)
It's important to clarify that when I mention speaking "on behalf" of the animals, that simply means speaking in a way that is intended to benefit them. That does not necessarily involve acting as some kind of interpreter to pass on messages that the animals communicated to oneself directly. I'm not Doctor Dolittle, nor did I ever claim to be. Shame really, as it would be pretty cool!
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
(Score: 1) by Arik on Sunday September 09 2018, @01:42AM
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday September 09 2018, @11:54AM
Ok, another example are people in comas or with extreme dementia who don't have living relatives.
And whales do communicate (including during whale hunts). It just doesn't happen to meet the standard of human communications. On that particular issue, you had this to say:
Here, we have a peculiar situation. While there probably aren't many examples of animals trying to respect human rights, cetaceans do have an interesting history of occasionally aiding humans in their endeavors or in getting out of trouble. For example, we have the law of the tongue [scientificamerican.com].
So not only did a pod of killer whales understand well enough the needs of their human associates to assist in their endeavors, they honored an implicit agreement with those humans for three generations!
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Saturday September 08 2018, @02:47PM (1 child)
Not so. I acknowledged that to win rights in human society, there's a requirement for communication of the issues in a way those in charge take seriously. However, I did not say that it is right or fair that this is the case. The inability to communicate in an expected manner should not be sufficient to justify an individual or group's maltreatment. For example, I don't think a human being unable to speak or write or otherwise disabled gives anyone the right to harm them. I'd be very surprised, and concerned, if you thought it did.
But the animals do communicate. That's why I was careful to clarify the (unfair) need that it be in a way that the humans in charge of society take seriously. If someone attempts to slaughter an animal whilst it is fully conscious and has time to react, it will try to recoil and / or fight off the assailant and may give aggressive cues or alarm calls to warn others. Is this not a sufficiently unambiguous message for your purposes?
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
(Score: 2) by Arik on Saturday September 08 2018, @05:39PM
And from a practical point of view I can see how that seems reasonably accurate to you. Obviously, if the issues cannot be communicated, it's difficult to know how we should take nonetheless be expected to take them seriously. Whether we're 'people in charge' or not.
There's a difference in kind between your human neighbors (who you may reasonably expect to understand and respect your rights) and the neighborhood dogs. Yes, those dogs may be very smart animals in many ways, but they can't understand our laws, and they cannot be held responsible for following them. Your reply was interesting but you don't seem to give the requirement for mutuality any thought at all. Yet it's really the key here. We respect human rights because humans can understand our rights, be expected to respect them mutually. When they don't, they repudiate the basis for civilized society, they remove that obligation. In the case of our food animals, there is no way to get to that mutual obligation in the first place.
The pigs will eat you. It doesn't matter how uncomfortable that fact might make you, or how many billions you might spend no trying to educate the pigs, and it doesn't matter how much you can offer the pigs anyway. End of the day, if they get the chance, they will eat you.
"But the animals do communicate. That's why I was careful to clarify the (unfair) need that it be in a way that the humans in charge of society take seriously."
They can certainly communicate in a sense, yes, at a certain level. But again, the practical requirement here in order for it to be possible, feasible to incorporate them into our system of rights, they would need to be able to communicate at a higher level than that. One that permits the concept of mutual rights and obligations to be understood, to be accepted, to be agreed to. And all evidence so far indicates that we're the only species on the planet which is capable of doing that. A key concept is "moral agent." Being able to make the moral choice, and thus being a suitable target for blame or praise on moral grounds. An animal which is not able to understand the basic concepts that form the foundation for human civilization and moral behavior is not a moral agent. The choices it makes are not moral choices, and it's utter nonsense to give it either praise or blame based on things that are beyond its understanding.
I would not just be happy but even eager to back the extension of rights to a non-human species *if there was a species with the required capabilities.* I've been hoping for decades that would happen. Cetaceans were and remain one of the most promising areas to explore. But all evidence available so far still indicates that we're the only species on the planet capable of doing this. New evidence could change that any day, and no one would be happier with that than I. But the new evidence produced since the 70s hasn't proven the case - to the contrary the case seems much weaker in light of the intervening research.
But understand, this is not some arbitrary point plucked out of the tail for no reason. It's a functional requirement. Even with our own species, certain individuals are so dull that they cannot really function as moral agents, at least temporarily, and the courts recognize this. Minors in general are not really treated as moral agents - but they still have a place within the system of moral agents, both as responsibility of their parents, and in the expectation that they will mature and become agents themselves by adulthood. But even after that, individuals who have severe difficulty understanding the rules, understanding their obligations - those people may still be treated as children through adult life, and have special guardians appointed to them.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 08 2018, @10:05AM (3 children)
Communication is a two-way street. If humans fail to communicate with otherwise intelligent animals (of which there are plenty -- crows, apes, dolphins, horses), is it ok to assume the human is the non-intelligent one?
(Score: 2) by Arik on Sunday September 09 2018, @01:03AM (2 children)
It doesn't matter one bit whether we can't communicate because we are not sufficiently intelligent, or because they are not. Completely beside the point. It's the same situation either way. Communication is a necessary condition for establishing a mutual relationship of rights and obligations. It doesn't matter one bit *why* it cannot be accomplished - the mutual relationship of rights and responsibilities that exist between humans cannot be extended to them without their informed consent. It doesn't matter whether they're incapable of being informed, or we're simply incapable of informing them, we're getting no informed consent either way, so the relationship between our species remains outside of the context in which rights have meaning.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday September 09 2018, @12:01PM (1 child)
In human law, it usually matters to whom a failing occurs. Here, I think intelligent whales would instill an obligation on the side of human society to learn how to communicate with them and establish a common legal representation and protection for whales in human society.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Sunday September 09 2018, @04:38PM
Assuming it would, that's still circular logic though. How exactly are we to be sure they're intelligent, prior to establishing communication?
And if they're so smart then why don't they make contact with us? Or at least show that they understand our communication?
If you think we should somehow pick up on this without proof of the case, well then, why should we not extend the same obligation to the pigs and cattle and chickens and everything else we eat?
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by ikanreed on Friday September 07 2018, @08:17PM (3 children)
There's really no level of harvest that's sustainable with today's whale populations, at least among, blue, right, and sperm whales along with killer "whales". They're pretty badly endangered and every single harvest is a threat to population genetic diversity. Sustainably harvest narwhal if you want.
These kinds of plans, if instituted in say, 1890, would be sustainable, but we're still basically at a point where no harvest is good harvest.
So, yes, actual conservationists cheered, because the end-run was around laws that were rehabilitating genuinely endangered species. And it's not an idle concern, there's entire genera of whales that don't exist anymore, purely because of human activity.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Arik on Friday September 07 2018, @08:31PM (2 children)
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 4, Interesting) by ikanreed on Friday September 07 2018, @09:25PM
Well, far be it from me to stick to a position without qualification. Seems like a reasonable counterpoint.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Saturday September 08 2018, @05:04AM
As long as it is sustainable, then people can knock themselves out whaling. I'm not sure about the sentience argument, but if we go with that, then no bacon. I'm not down for that.
The problem is when you don't regulate whaling at all, but regulations themselves never happened. Just prohibition. Japan can hunt whale populations that can handle it. Otherwise, no. Seems reasonable to me.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 07 2018, @08:35PM (5 children)
The prohibition was due to past attempts at whaling caps that drove some species to near or total extinction. Basically, if you can't ban them from the markets completely, poaching will destroy any attempts at caps.
Having said that, the ocean is so filthy and radioactive nowadays that one has to wonder who the hell is crazy enough to eat fish not sourced from farms? I mean, does the plastic and sewage add something to the flavor or something? Seriously. Might as well eat a dumpster rat.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday September 07 2018, @08:46PM (1 child)
How radioactive is "the ocean", really?
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 07 2018, @11:44PM
Depends. Ocean wide? Barely: https://www.livescience.com/61986-fukushima-anniversary-radiation-levels.html [livescience.com]
Around the Fukushima coast lines? Best avoided: https://www.nature.com/articles/srep09016 [nature.com]
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday September 07 2018, @10:34PM (2 children)
If you think farmed fish is remotely clean, you have never paid attention to fish farming.
I'll take the glowing one over the one which spent its life literally swimming in shit.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 07 2018, @11:49PM (1 child)
Sick fish won't infect humans since the virus/bacteria aren't compatible. Fish eating plastic, human feces and radioactive waste will harm you.
So, disgusting as it may be, farm fishes living in their own waste are even safer than pigs living in similar conditions.
(Score: 2) by dry on Sunday September 09 2018, @02:29AM
The fish farms around here are in the ocean, with nets acting as a fence, so those fish are just as exposed to plastic, feces and radioactive waste as the wild fish. Share the same parasites as well, which is the reason for cooking (or freezing in the case of sushi) fish.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 07 2018, @07:48PM (3 children)
Whales should thank god/spaghetti that the Chinese don't fancy whale meat.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Friday September 07 2018, @09:20PM (1 child)
Wait......
......
....................they'll eat spiders and maggots........but not whale meat.............
......hmmmm...........................
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 07 2018, @09:27PM
Uhmmmm... maggots....
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 07 2018, @10:08PM
They should be even more grateful that lard-ass Americans don't eat whale meat... "double blubber burger, and supersize the fries."
(Score: 2) by mrpg on Friday September 07 2018, @11:24PM
That sounds like "Responsible Encryption"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 08 2018, @12:30PM
don't we see stories about whale sightings and even dead washed up whales on the west coast of n.amerika?
i am curious why the same isn't reported from the east coast of japan?
maybe if they (japan) don't have to cross the equator to get their whale meat and/or even get to spot whales of the coast of eastern japan, then sure, we can say to the whales "we careful when you swim near japan, they have harpoons!".
there's a logical dilemma about "japanese culture of whale eating":
if it's really a old culture, then i doubt they would have sailed all the way to antartica to get it (in their non blue-water vessels) -or- there used to be whales just off the coast of japan 1000 years ago and they got eaten to extinction.