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: 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?