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: 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?