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: 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?