Why the Western policy to end Japanese whaling has failed.

[kristopher]

I have spent more than a decade in Japan, and their whaling practices were a matter of great concern to me then. I attended university in Tokyo and took a 4 year undergrad degree in what would be termed cultural anthropology here. I paid my way through school by teaching English to business people at a number of different Japanese corporations. The method of teaching required long periods of conversation with what amounted to several thousand people by the the time I finished. The students ranged from the newly hired to corporate CEOs, and ran the gamut of enterprises from scientific R&D to financial to automobile manufacturing, and even included a 6 month period at a Japanese fishery company.

Since one of the most universal topics of conversation I included was whaling, this allowed me to investigate the beliefs of the Japanese public at a depth that very few (if any) who are involved in fight against whaling have every had.

I've tried to share what I learned here on DU, only to have a select group of nuclear supporters use my opposition to the tactics of Paul Watson as a cudgel to diminish the audience for my views rejecting continued deployment of nuclear power. If you are genuinely concerned about the killing of whales, I think the message I have to offer is worth hearing in its entirety. (I should add that my training since anthropology centered on US and international ocean policy. This led to the topic of policy development related to offshore wind resources and that, in turn, to the subject of climate change and carbon free energy.)

A thread on DU2 contains the essential elements of the beliefs I hold as a result of my research in country research on whaling by the Japanese. Let me say that my evaluation causes me to believe the actions of the Sea Shephard are extremely damaging to our effort to stop the Japanese from whaling. I consider him to be either 1) competely deluded about his oppoosition, or 2) an opportunistic self promoter that is far more concerned with maintaining a base of hero worship than he is with actually doing something about the problem. I'm inclined towards #2.

My strong inclination when reading the discussion was to try to correct some obvious false assumptions. That's important to me because in a discussion, if someone tells you something you know is untrue as part of a larger argument, the normal human response is to reject the entire argument and label the person who insists on the false statement as "unreasonable". That ends negotiations.

The OP was about 2 crew from the Sea Shepard that had been taken into custody when they boarded a Japanese whaler.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3143254#3143463
Here it is:

British anti-whaling protester held hostage on Japanese harpoon ship offered whale meat for dinner

The crew of a Japanese harpoon ship holding a British anti-whaling protester captive insist they are treating him well - and have even offered him a meal of whale meat.
British protester Giles Lane remained a captive on board the Japanese harpoon ship tonight as accusations flew across the icy, fog-shrouded waters of Antarctica.
The Japanese crew accused 36-year-old Mr Giles, from Cuckfield, West Sussex, and an Australian colleague of piracy after the pair stormed the whaling vessel Yushin Maru on Tuesday.
But the captain of the Sea Shepherd conservation vessel which sent the men on a protest mission against the whaler fired back - accusing the Japanese of terrorism on the high seas.
...
To add insult to injury for the two imprisoned protesters, it was revealed that the Japanese crew had even offered them the chance of having a meal of whale meat in their locked cabin.

My response to the OP:
I think it's funny. The Japanese have a terrific sense of humor, IMO. I don't endorse whaling, but, the Japanese have legal right to do what they are doing. They have gone along with completely illogical restrictions on whaling that, once at risk populations stabilized and recovered, have no basis in "scientific management" of the whale as a resource (which is the premise of the IWC).
We (in America) have extended the umbrella of human compassion to marine mammals and that is the real basis of our effort to halt whaling. When we argue at the IWC however, we make claims of extinction risk that are so obviously and grossly exaggerated that we end up just pissing them off.
This is the result of that dishonesty.
If we really want to stop them from whaling there is probably a way; but harassing them by ramming and boarding their ships is wrong and only serves to make them more determined.


On the taking by the Japanese of "endangered species" of whale:
Claim: Fin whales are endangered, and slaughtering them violates CITES. Japan has no legal right to slaughter these whales; the ICR whalers are poachers and should be treated as such.


Supporting evidence did not apply to international law governing what the Japanese were doing. My reply:
Your response is a perfect example of what's wrong. There are a lot of whale species that are endangered and the Japanese aren't hunting any of them. Your post makes a dishonest argument and that type of dishonesty is what has them pissed off. They are in waters that the Australian courts have no jurisdiction over and, as your article clearly states, they are targeting minke - an abundant species. They intended to take some humpbacks but altered their plans to accommodate the Western public. Instead of acknowledging the actuality of their actions in relation to the intent of the IWC and international law, there are too many who are willing to resort to the kind of dishonesty you've demonstrated.
All I'm saying is be honest - you don't want them killing whales because you like whales and feel that killing them has a sort of equivalency with the killing of a human. Essentially my thesis is that in the modern era, westerners have (for reasons that require a rather long explanation) extended the cannibalism/murder taboo to non-humans.
That is a valid enough claim to make to the Japanese; it doesn't need to be hidden and argued through the use of transparently false/misleading arguments."




In response to the claim that the Japanese have no "right" to engage in whaling:
Claim: Japan has no legal right to slaughter these whales; the ICR whalers are poachers. Speculating about my honesty is a relevance fallacy.


My reply:
They are absolutely within their rights, that's why there is no legal action to prevent what they are doing. And I'm not speculating about your honesty. I'm saying explicitly that the arguments you expressed are false and dishonest. It is relavent because it is this dishonesty that motivates the sense of nationalism which Japanese whalers depend on to shape public opinion in their favor.

Look at the other responses to my posts - a primary ingredient of those replies is indignation that the Japanese disguise their true motives (commercial whaling) behind the facade of scientific research. What makes you think the Japanese are any different than we are? The foundation of the IWC is scientific management of a resource. They entered into the IWC treaties in good faith based on that premise but saw the hijacking of that organization by anti-whaling interests that have not played square from day one. So when those opposed to whaling point to the obvious fiction of "scientific whaling" and claim duplicity on the part of the Japanese, do you know the effect of that criticism? Do you know how they react to the claim they are "buying" votes of smaller non-interested countries?
They love it for it is seen as justice for the miserable and DISHONORABLE way they have been treated in the IWC. Both the vote buying and lying are strategies that were employed FIRST by antiwhaling interests.

Let me repeat that I also want them to stop whaling. I just think that the key is honest discussion starting with the fact that they are violating a taboo that many feel as strongly about as they do murder or cannibalism. Believe it or not, the Japanese are an incredibly sympathetic and understanding people and I think they will respond positively such an appeal."




Claim: "Even the most healthy whale populations are still bare fractions of their historic numbers, whales reproduce slowly and to low numbers and are already threatened by climate change, pollution and destabilization of oceanic food chains due to commercial fishing. Two of the species targeted this year, fin whales and humpbacks (they later backed out on the humpback target under pressure) are endangered species, and while more common most species protection schemes list minkes as threatened, near-threatened or a species of concern, and they're relatively plentiful when compared to their kin. Quite frankly, there isn't a species of whale with ANY surplus population, before one even gets into the amount of cruelty involved in killing the poor beasts.
In any case, the IWC, of which Japan is a member, does not permit commercial whaling, and the ICRs program is clearly commercial in nature."


My reply:
"I believe your evaluation is flawed . I believe your evaluation is flawed if we start with the premise - as the IWC did - that whales are a resource to be managed and harvested.

Your argument is formed on beliefs and values that have very little do do with science and reproduction rates. I mean, really, look at what you wrote: "Quite frankly, there isn't a species of whale with ANY surplus population, before one even gets into the amount of cruelty involved in killing the poor beasts."

Do you see that you are making an emotional judgment first then evaluating information in a way that presets your conclusion? To emphasize my point I'll note that you've doubled the "sin" of Japanese by claiming "Two of the species targeted this year, fin whales and humpbacks (they later backed out on the humpback target under pressure) are endangered species."

Actually, the fin whales and the humpbacks are one and the same - the fins are a type of humpback. The minke is also a type of humpback, but is present in much much greater numbers than other flavors (excuse the pun, I couldn't resist) of humpback.

The point you raise regarding how many whales there actually are demonstrates well why honesty is important. The original estimates of the recovered minke population placed the number at nearly a million. As a counter to Japanese pressure to resume whaling a new estimate was made that reduced this number to less than 200,000. Later surveys put the number at nearly double that.

Now my point isn't the precision of the numbers, it is that the dishonesty of OUR argument has made the science suspect and provided for the Japanese a firm justification for thumbing their noses at us.

If someone wanted to kill dogs would you try to argue on the basis of their suitability as a food source or whould you argue from the heart based on compassion?"

Response to me:
Both arguments have validity. That there is no species of large whales currently within shouting distance of historical numbers is a fact only disputed by advocates of renewed commercial whaling.

That there's no way to kill a large oceangoing creature at all quickly while still leaving still leaving a mostly intact carcass to be "harvested" (and "studied" in the case of Japanese "scientific whaling&quot is both common sense and quite evident in the average time (about twenty minutes, and keep in mind that's a number that comes overwhelmingly from smaller minke whales) it takes even the very large and very modern Japanese fleet to kill one.

And while Fin whales, Humpbacks and Minke whales are fairly closely related as Rorqual whales, they are distinct species (and obviously visually distinct, for that matter) and are members of two different subfamilies. Humpbacks are subfamily Megapterinae while Fins and Minke (and Blue whales, to name a more famous relative) are subfamily Balaenopterinae."



I reply:
"Not saying there is no validity in your argument. What I said was that the basis for decision making within the IWC is NOT the one you are using. You have adopted the goal of reaching "historical numbers" (as if we knew what those were) instead of the stated IWC goal of managing a resource for harvest.

Can't you see the problem using such disingenuous arguments creates? You can't even acknowledge that you are using incorrect information - you wrote that the Japanese were hunting fin whales as well as humpbacks. They aren't. The 50 humpbacks they agreed not to take are the fin whales you are talking about.

The taboo argument is a valid one, you don't need to manufacture a smokescreen and outrage here. If you really want whaling stopped, you need to reach out to the Japanese people directly, let them know how you feel and "ask for their understanding." I put that in quotes because it is a standard phrase in Japanese negotiations. Another standard phrase - always a negative - is arrogant and high handed. That is how they perceive our dishonest actions and statements, as high handed and arrogant. If you want them to stop you must shift that perception to one of sincerity and deeply held emotional convictions."

******************************************************



This type of exchange has happened several times on a number of threads, but it was 6 months later that I proposed a concrete approach for a grass solution to an intractable diplomatic problem:

Thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3373043#3373631


"You don't see it, that's fair enough. Then it incumbent upon me to share with you what I see.

You have asserted that the Japanese are 'murdering' whales that are "going extinct".

In the first place, none of the whales that the Japanese have taken are even close to being in danger of going extinct. You have, however, clearly displayed your real objective. You object not because the whale is in danger of going extinct, because it isn't; you object because you have experienced a shift in the structure of your morality. If you had used the term 'murder' in reference to whaling in 1938, I suspect most people would have thought you a bit touched in the head.

Now, let me be clear, I also have experienced this shift in values. I also place a special value on the unknown potential of a whales intelligence. While I respect other life forms in general, I can't help but be more sympathetic to the creatures who have minds. Be it my dog, a big cat, a horse, a simian or ape relative, an elephant or a whale; when there is a connection possible there is a special bond possible.

What is important in my view is that people stop caricaturing the Japanese on this issue. They haven't gone along with us on this but the problem, in my view is that they simply haven't been given the courtesy of an honest and open discussion. Instead of that the approach by Western representatives on this matter has been deceitful and slanderous.

If you really want to stop the whaling, get together about 5000 people who will go to Japan and stand around the subway stations passing out leaflets saying something like "Please forgive us for caring so much about whales that we must ask you to change for our benefit. We understand it is very hard to make such changes under harsh criticisms and unfortunate statements of arrogance. We humbly ask you to please understand that we have no choice. Our new understanding of the whale's intelligence has made us feel that to kill a whale it to kill a human; that to eat a whale is to eat a human. Surely you can understand our feeling. If you felt we were eating people how could you endure us? Please, we beg you, stop."

No one, not once, has had the courtesy to be honest with the Japanese on this subject. The reason? Because to admit the motive is to be reduced to asking for their understanding. To ask for their understanding is to place yourself in a vulnerable position. So we argue from arrogance instead and then call them bloodthirsty for refusing to succumb to our coercion."


Back to present: while 5000 people seems like a lot, in the context of global concern about the problem and the amount of resources expended on decades of failed efforts it seems like a pretty minor effort to me.

[joshcryer]

1. Monitoring of whaling and trade in endangered species

In the first place, none of the whales that the Japanese have taken are even close to being in danger of going extinct.

False.

Monitoring of whaling and trade in endangered species
Despite a world moratorium on commercial whaling passed by the International Whaling Commission in 1982, whaling continues under the guise of scientific research by Japan and through consistent fisheries "bycatch" of whales in South Korea. Products from both scientific research and bycatch are legally sold in these countries. In 1993, Scott Baker, in collaboration with Steve Palumbi (now at Stanford University) and Earthtrust, initiated a program of "molecular monitoring" to identify the species of whales and dolphins sold in these commercial markets (Baker and Palumbi 1994).

This program is now in it 14th year and has identified the species and in some cases the geographic origin of nearly 2,000 products from at least 28 species of cetaceans including seven species or subspecies of protected baleen whales: the humpback, western gray, fin, blue/fin hybrids, sei, Bryde’s and small-from Bryde’s whales (Baker et al. 1996; Baker et al. 2000b).

Products are "sampled" through targeted purchasing of whale meat from various markets in each country by local collaborators, Naoko Funahashi (International Fund for Animal Welfare, (IFAW) Japan) and Yong-Un Ma (Korean Federation for Environment Movement (KFEM)). These samples cannot be exported directly from either country due to the constraints of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). Therefore, once or twice a year, trips are made to each country with a portable PCR (Polymerase Chain Reaction) laboratory to extract DNA, amplify regions of interest and isolate this amplified artificial DNA for further genetic analyses back in the CCGL.

In addition to the continued sale of protected species, we have identified the large-scale undocumented exploitation of a protected population or ‘stock’ (J-stock) of North Pacific minke whales (Baker et al. 2000a) (Dalebout et al. 2002). The results of a five-year survey of whale products in Korea were used to estimate the growing threat of unregulated exploitation of minke whales by fisheries entanglement ( "net whaling" ). Using a novel capture-recapture method developed for the analysis of market products by Dr. Justin Cooke, we estimated that more than 800 minke whales have been killed and sold on markets during the last five years. This level of exploitation represents a serious threat to the survival of the genetically distinct population of minke whales found along the coasts of Korea and Japan (Baker et al. 2007).

The western policy has failed because it would be trivial to invoke sanctions on Japan and other countries for failing to comply with the Pelly Amendment. So in that vein activists have had to get involved, and they did cut short the 2010-2011 season by a little while (though how many whales were saved is up for debate).

[kristopher]

3. You are conflating two discussions.

This one is concerned with the actions of the Japanese under IWC agreements and efforts to stop those actions.

You are speaking to a broader discussion that I haven't addressed. I do think, however, that should my proposal be carried out it would lead to an internal discussion among the Japanese public that would raise the level of consciousness regarding the use of whales for food. Since we are in entering the third generation of Japanese that have never experienced starvation (a rare length of time for them historically) the pressure on their value system of what I'll call starvation awareness is steadily diminishing. The number of grandparents who have personally faced death from starvation is steadily declining, and with them goes one of the strongest cultural forces resisting a shift in the cannibalism taboo such as we have experienced.

If the lack of caloric shortages continues as I would expect it to, and if social peer pressure from us is brought to bear in a way that they are culturally programmed to respond to, then I believe that an effort like I propose could ultimately be a strong (perhaps definitive) influence on their behavior.

I KNOW that in discussions with several hundred Japanese on the topic they were extremely affected by my invoking the cannibalism taboo as a factor in my own beliefs.

[joshcryer]

6. The bycatch directly impacts endangered species.

The discussion is whether or not Japanese whaling puts at risk endangered species.

This is uncontroversial.

If you want to impact Japanese culture with regards to whaling, one need only point out mercury toxicity levels in whale meat. Invoke Minamata. Self-interest wins every time.

[kristopher]

10. You are repeating an argument I believe you got from me.

Thank you.

But the species was tuna, not whale. Most of them don't even like whale - they just continue the practice because, in their eyes, to stop would be a shameful defeat by an enemy (instead of an act to accommodate a friend they don't quite understand).

[XemaSab]

12. You're still taking a "blame the victim" approach

The US *makes* poor, innocent, put-upon Japan kill whales.

I bet you think those women in Nanking were asking for it, too.

[kristopher]

16. The victims are the whales.

I thought the OP made my thesis clear:

The world used to consider whaling a normal use of a natural resource and we made an international agreement to manage whale populations for the purpose of harvesting them for food.

For reasons I didn't go into (but explainable via cultural anthro theory) much of the West experienced a shift in cultural values while the Japanese (among a few others) did not.

The cultural value in play is the same one governed by the cannibalism taboo, it is therefore deeply rooted in an emotional base.

Emotion-driven beliefs that assign the protection of the cannibalism taboo to whales is nearly impossible for most people to see within themselves, much less appreciate and articulate.

When we met resistance from the Japanese we have therefore resorted to arguments that are illogical *when considered in the context of the original purpose of the IWC agreements*.

We are ashamed of admitting that our actions are driven by emotions (even a deep seated one like aversion to cannibalism) and are consequently conflicted when our weak reasoning fails to produce the desired results.

This, in turn, leads to frustration and inappropriately placed anger.

That isn't blame, that is analysis.

[XemaSab]

17. On Thu Jun 25th 2009 you said:

"The Japanese are correct in their assertions that the judgments being made in the west are a result of an intent towards a predisposed outcome - that whaling should be halted. They are correct in their arguments that a resumption of limited commercial whaling is justified by the science. Since the basis of IWC policy is supposed to be the scientific management of whaling harvests, and since the Japanese by-and-large simply do not share the belief in the sanctity of whale lives, and since the antiwhaling camp have attempted to attain their goals by deceit and trickery within the IWC (ie. they were the originators of the strategy of bringing nonwhaling nations into the IWC in order to bolster their voting numbers), what sort of policy do you think is appropriate for Japan to follow?"

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/kristopher/283

That sounds really anti-whaling right there.

[Dead_Parrot]

20. Seems to be some muddled thinking there...

As Kris points out, the IWC was set up (in 1949) to manage the "harvesting" of whales - which it did for nearly four decades. To claim it had a "predisposed outcome" to halt whaling seems a little... incorrect.

[kristopher]

25. On what specific basis do you make the snarky "antiwhaling" remark.

You've overtly implied that I endorse mass rape, and now you are taking an explanation of the Japanese position as evidence of my support for whaling.

What universe do you live in where knowledge and understanding of something are the same as endorsing that thing?

[XemaSab]

31. You said that the Japanese have a terrific sense of humor

and that feeding Sea Shepherds whale meat was funny.

If I said that the Donner Party was "funny," what would you think?

[kristopher]

32. There you go making another of your leaps from fact to fiction

The act of " feeding Sea Shepherds whale meat" that you are alleging simply did not occur.

True they offered it, but that isn't the same as pressing it on them and making them eat it.
ETA: Given the degree of contempt I hold for the methods of Watson and his acolytes, yes, I thought the entire scenario was humorous. What the hell did they think was going to happen when they violated international law and boarded a ship on the high seas without invitation?

Second, your reply - as usual - completely ignores the context of the question which was a request for you to explain specifically WHY the post you had just made was somehow an indication of prowhaling sentiment on my part.

Since it if crystal clear that I am not prowhaling your attempts to throw these allegations at me can easily be seen for the cheap shots they are.

Now, I've addressed every question you've posed to me with directness and sincerity; isn't it about time that you responded in kind. You behavior requires some explanation.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/11271082#post47

[XemaSab]

33. Never mind...

n/t

[kristopher]

34. Your leaps of logic make dialog difficult.

You've made a lot of baseless over the top accusations towards me, and I've tried to be polite and forthcoming. Surely you can do the same when there have been no accusations, but merely questions that are directly related to your ability to act as an impartial host for this group. Your transparent attempt to stir resentment against me by distorting my position on whaling is a perfect example - who can trust someone who does that to act in any way as an impartial arbiter of differing points of view?

Please, answer the questions. If you can address my concerns why would I not want you to serve? Refusing to engage in discussion on the topic however can only lead to greater distrust.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/11271082#post47

[XemaSab]

35. I have been posting things that you have previously said

Last edited Mon Dec 19, 2011, 04:41 PM - Edit history (1)

You, on the other hand, haven't provided a single, solitary link about my supposed beliefs.

You're trying to smear me and slander me and the other hosts with outright LIES in some sort of shitty ass attempt to smear my reputation and remove me as host of this group, and yet you think you're the put-upon party here?

(You are aware, of course, that I could and SHOULD lock this whole thread as the continuation of a thread that you were locked out of for being disruptive, right?)

[kristopher]

36. Do you want me to post links about your beliefs?

I'd much rather engage in a constructive dialog. Is it that difficult to address the concerns I listed?

[XemaSab]

37. I'm finished trying to talk to you

If I have to judge any of your threads or your posts in my capacity as host, I will make a good faith effort to be fair.

Good bye.

[joshcryer]

14. That's a rather paternalistic view, imo.

It's like saying American's drink shitty ass beer because they don't want to drink good beer because it would be a loss to the Canadians. Nah, probably we like drinking industrial beer because it's fucking cheap and we're cheap lazy fuckers.

I'm sure it's more complex than that. Whaling industry is highly subsidized, without it there would be jobs losses, and I'm sure that plays into it.

Another issue is with regards to the ties it has to the dolphin industry, which pays millions to the groups who are involved, at the point of it being its own kind of mafia. If the whaling industry gets shut down, then the dolphins for entertainment industry gets threatened.

You look at how the other parts of the developing world world are increasingly eating farmed fish, the US even changed its direction; that can be (but not always are) more environmentally friendly. Japan is going this route, too.

I think that as the alternate reasons for Japanese seafood industry are being mitigated, they will stop the practice. But until then I have no need to justify their behavior.

[XemaSab]

2. You fail biology forever:

Fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fin_whale


Humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humpback_whale


Minke whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata) and (Balaenoptera bonaerensis):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minke_whale



Humpback isn't even in the same genus.

[kristopher]

4. I was using the CITES database.

I can't reconstruct the basis for that comment, but the information on their status was directly from CITES.

Family Balaenopteridae

Megaptera novaengliea - Humpback Whale
Balaenoptera acutorostrata - Minke Whale
Balaenoptera bonarensis - Antarctic minke whale
Balaenoptera edeni - Eden's whale
Balaenoptera brydei - Bryde`s whale
Balaenoptera omurai - Omura's Whale
Balaenoptera borealis - Sei Whale
Balaenoptera physalis - Fin Whale
Balaenoptera musculus - Blue Whale


Is that they only message you take away from more than a decade of research involving hundreds of indepth interviews with a wide cross-section of Japanese?

[XemaSab]

7. I would say that not knowing the difference

between a family, a genus, and a species disqualifies you from talking about biology, yes.

(Here's a mnemonic for you: Kinky People Can Often Find Good Sex. Got me through university, that one did. )

[LeftyMom]

5. There's an existing whaling thread, why did you start another

to discuss points that were made YEARS ago? You're arguing about a thread from 2008, for heaven's sake.

Further, quoting without attribution is unacceptable in any context. If you're going to quote several paragraphs of my writing I expect to be asked first (or at the very least given a polite heads up) and I expect attribution.

As for the "substance" (and I use the term loosely) of your argument, when you read up on how historical populations are estimated from genetic data* and aren't arguing from complete ignorance, I'll pursue the rest of the matter with you.

*hint: This gets done with species other than whales all the time. If we can tell from genetics that the Toba supervolcano eruption reduced the human population to 10,000 individuals, don't you think we can estimate more recent whale populations much more easily by the same methods?

[joshcryer]

8. The jury locked him out of that thread for being insulting.

The Hosts would not be wrong to lock this thread in principle, but I suspect if that were to happen the outrage would continue. The same would happen if a jury found this whaling justification unsuitable for DU.

[freshwest]

15. I don't see whaling justification in this thread. I see a solution.

And the *cannibalism/murder taboo* is my *gut* reason for opposing any whaling, not stastistics about the number of whales of whatever kind in the wild or elsewhere. Approaching people we disagree with respect is also a useful tool to achieve a win-win situation.

Before this thread, I hadn't read a good elucidation of my emotions on the subject. Rather than expressing what is often derided as a form of childish sentimentality or crying about Bambi's mother getting shot in the Disney classic, this was a good argument.

I am against killing people because they are sentient and I am against killing anything that is considered intelligent. I've extended my perception of the value of bookish intelligence as compared to other kinds of intelligence. And I believe that we and the animals are here to learn and experience life on this planet, not to make a point.

[joshcryer]

19. Cannibalism / murder doesn't play into it for me.

If it came down to it and I need to for survival, I would have no problem killing a whale. Growing up extremely poor, and having a diet of potatoes, I came to appreciate other life and that when it is taken, another life is sustained (a 20 cent bullet would feed a very poor family of 6 for an entire winter). I would draw the line at actually killing another human, but again, if it came down to it and a human corpse was available for consumption, I could see myself participating in such an act.

As far as whales are concerned my objection to killing them is due to the technological capacity of humans, particularly the highly technologically advanced Japanese people, who have a massive aquaculture system and who do not need to meet their agricultural needs via exploiting Earth's natural resources.

If it was sustainable, I could see myself defending the Japanese whaling practice, but it simply isn't. It's killing endangered species. And it's trivially justified somehow because of some sort of patriotic anti-American sentiment. That, I find insulting.

[XemaSab]

22. For me it's like cutting down an old-growth redwood

There's no reason to do it other than to feel some sort of macho bullshit thrill.

I'm ok with logging and I'm ok with hunting, but there's a point where it becomes less about necessity than about ego.

Apparently the sacred male ego is so sacred in some parts of the world that whales need to die to propitiate it.

Fun fact: most OG redwood that's cut down winds up as panelling in corporate offices in Japan.

[joshcryer]

24. I can see that.

I haven't fired a gun in 20 years or so, but given the circumstances, I can't fault myself or my family for doing it when our neighbor (who himself was actually a trophy collector) offered to take us. There was probably a bit of machoism in that, too, because the dad wanted us to haul back the carcass and demanded we strip it. For a first time 13-15 year old, yeah, that's a pretty traumatic experience.

A technological society like Japan has no need or want for whaling. Indigenous tribes, on the other hand, may. But there's a huge difference between 10-15 whales being killed by a small group and thousands of whales killed by an industry that is merely poisoning its own populations.

[freshwest]

26. Logged and sold by Americans, though. We are not blameless.

[miyazaki]

27. Ha that's a cheap shot of redwood paneling

in Japanese corporate offices. More like in the private homes and offices of
Sierra Club muckety mucks.

[XemaSab]

29. That's what they told me

in forestry class at Humboldt State University.

[miyazaki]

39. Ha, ya. Well, they smoke a lot of greens up there.

[kristopher]

28. The cannibalism taboo

It is explored in detail by late anthropologist Marvin Harris in the book (for lay reader) titled 'Cannibals and Kings'.

I'm sure you don't realize it, but you are expressing an essential part of the way the taboo is a functional part of culture - it's criteria for application alter depending on availability of high quality caloric foods. You wouldn't eat the whale unless you had to in order to survive. Why not?

You wouldn't eat a human corpse unless you needed to in order to survive. Why not?

Would you eat the whale first or the corpse first?
Why?

You wouldn't kill another human to eat them?

If you were stranded in your small home village facing a desperately harsh winter and the same certainty of death from lack of food would you kill a stranger for food?

What if it was the key to your family's survival through the same harsh winter? Would you kill a stranger for food?

What if grandmother feels she only has a short time to live so she suggests that her and grandfather be sacrificed to save their grandchildren? What do you do?

Do you think you can accurately predict your own behavior in that type of environment?


What you'll find if you examine the available evidence is that the taboo is fluid and tied to availability of high quality protein. In times of plenty we expand the zone of those covered by the taboo from the nuclear family outwards. In times of stress that threaten survival we shrink the zone of coverage.

From the view of 200,000 years of human culture we are living in times of unprecedented abundance, especially in the US. For the greatest part, famine and starvation aren't even distant memories held in the longest lived of our grand and great-grand parents. Our definition of what is "food" has altered as a result.

It isn't the same for the Japanese. Starvation and famine were widespread at the close of WW2 and it is a part of living memory that can only be expunged by time. Find a copy of the anime 'Hotaru no Haka' (Grave of the Fireflies) to appreciate what their state of cultural awareness is on the topic of starvation.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0095327/

[FBaggins]

30. Which raises the key difficulty

Can you get the other side to view "whale" as close enough to "human" to adopt the same taboo...

... or to at least accept that someone whose friendly relations they desire honestly feels that way?

The first, I think, is beyond possibility of success in any short amount of time. The second is where your OP has the most merit.

I don't think that anyone can doubt that the Japanese recognize that some people think of whales as close enough to "people" that they can't imagine eating one (or killing it for "scientific research" real or imagined). They have no doubt seen the show and it's clear that viewing a whale being slaughtered drives them nuts in just the sort of way that watching an execution would for anyone else. And their "fight" reaction very clearly makes that plain as well.

Where the calculus breaks down (and IMO cannot be repaired by SS) is that they are in no way "someone whose friendly relations are desired". The Japanese (accepting that this is a gross oversimplification) simply don't care to be friends with people who are subjectively this uncivilized in other ways. They don't see any reason to bow to their demands just to get along... because they don't want to get along with people like that. And, as you earlier noted, don't want to back down from the confrontation and "lose".

There are better ways to get the results we want. For all their entertainment value and all the people who have awakened to the issue through their efforts... they hurt the cause far more than they help it (IMO).

[joshcryer]

38. I don't eat whale because I'm living in a technological society.

It has nothing to do with having "empathy" for a whale. None whatsoever. Killing a stranger for food during starvation, yes, that's something I could see doing under some extremely particular circumstances. I was assuming more realistic scenarios, such as maybe being stranded somewhere in a crashed plane with dead bodies strewn about (recent case of people cannibalising their crewmates when their plane crashed, for example). Or being in a situation where whale meat was a viable option for long term survival.

So I can't disagree with the whole idea of "the taboo is fluid and tied to availability of high quality protein." But I think that goes without saying, for survival purposes.

"Starvation and famine were widespread at the close of WW2" is true, which is why McAurther enabled massive whaling to feed the Japanese people after their infrastructure was obliterated. Thus the true irony is that post-War Japan's whaling was a prescription by the west. That the Japanese continue to do it and it is argued to be anti-American, is amusing to say the least.

[kristopher]

40. So you have no objection to others eating whale?

If you do, then it creates the question of "why?".

To say that there are other foods available means you are ranking "other foods" as more desirable based on some qualitative difference you perceive.

It could be a general belief in the sanctity of life, but that would require you to adopt a vegetarian out look.

It could be based on the belief whaling is endangering specific whale species and that whaling and consumption of whale flesh acceptable if it doesn't threaten the survival of the species. If that is so then you are in general accord with the Japanese position.

[joshcryer]

41. I have a problem with technologial societies destroying planetary resources.

I thought that was pretty clear.

[kristopher]

42. So again to be clear, you have no objection to others eating whale?

You just don't want the Japanese to kill whales because they are using high tech means to do so, right? It isn't a matter of morality to you, it is... what?

That's where things break down in trying to understand what your belief system is. Here is why; if the objection you raise is as you state where you approve of killing whales and the consumption of their flesh provided the take is small, how do you then define "small"?

Presumably your reason for drawing a line at all is that you are wanting to prevent the consequences of a "larger" take. What is that consequence? Under such a perspective I've never seen anyone make any claim that the consequence is other than to keep the size of the population robust and large enough to ensure they continue to grace our seas, to not become extinct. You've already admitted that you approve of killing them - so what is the basis for deciding who gets to kill them and who doesn't?

Your explanation seems to me to be the basic belief structure underpinning the original mission of the IWC and is, again, consistent with the perspective that the Japanese articulate.

When you point to indigenous whaling as being an acceptable practice, it is not congruent with objecting to *limited* whaling by an industrial nation like Norway. If there are 400,000 members of a given species and the Norwegians agree to a firm limit on their take to 40 per year, then you need to have a way to explain to the Norwegians WHY you think it is OK to kill that number of whales from a wooden boat, but not from a steel boat. What you've shared with us so far would do nothing but cause them to become frustrated and angry.

Sure you can invoke the slippery slope argument, but justifying policing the actions of others on the basis of wrongs that only might someday be done is an extremely, extremely difficult case to make. It seldom if ever carries persuasive weight.

Have you ever used the word "murder" to describe the killing of any animal?

[joshcryer]

43. It has been explained.

You just don't want the Japanese to kill whales because they are using high tech means to do so, right? It isn't a matter of morality to you, it is... what?

I don't see why you have a problem with this.

That is precisely it.

High technological societies do not need to use their technology to destroy planetary resources, even if under the auspices of "sustainable." It isn't necessary, so why do it? You could argue that it is a purely utilitarian point of view, but morally and ethically I would argue that if your resource doesn't have a chance or that you don't have to put up much of an effort to get it, then there is an inherently authoritarian relationship.

Put it this way. Would you want an invading alien species to look at us through a lens that says that it's OK to kill humans as long as it's "sustainable"? About 130,000,000 people are born every single year. If we were culled at that rate, every year, would that be an acceptable practice to you? The aliens could certainly sit down and say "Well, it's a sustainable practice, it's not harming the human populations." And the intergalactic commission on Culling Alien Lifeforms could disagree with that practice, and some might be morally and ethically fine with killing other life forms when it's not necessary.

[kristopher]

44. I don't "have a problem with it" other than the fact that it doesn't explain your remarks.

You say one thing with one sentence and then come from a completely different direction in the next. In your latest iteration of what you believe, you object to whaling apparently because whales don't "have a chance" (sporting I presume), but that comes immediately after you say that high tech societies don't need to use their technology to "destroy planetary resources". I'm not sure what that means, but it seems to indicate an approval for chicken and beef.

Do you see my confusion?


The reasoning and beliefs you've shared are so conflicted I suspect you really don't care very much one way or another about the whaling problem except as a bandwagon. That's ok with me though, at least you are rooting for the good guys (that would be the whales, not Watson).

[joshcryer]

45. Technological societies can rule over non-technological societies.

Whales do not have a technological society. Thus we rule over them ("they don't have a chance&quot . And some people justify that rule under the auspices of "sustainability." There's no moral or ethical view about it, it's cold, calculating, and cruel.

I do not believe that some technological societies should rule over non-technological societies.

[kristopher]

46. Ants have "societies"

Do you walk out when you visit someone that has an ant farm? No, of course you don't. So it obviously is something deeper than social order. What is the distinguishing characteristic that mammals have which ants lack?

In my opinion (and this has been so from the start of this exchange) you ARE extending the taboos to whales we normally reserve for humans. Not only that, you are, whether you recognize it as such or not, extending the cannibalism taboo. The idea is frequently resisted and I've found that the root of the resistance is usually found in an incomplete understanding of exactly what the taboo is, how it functions and why.

I think you would love Cannibals and Kings.

[joshcryer]

47. What do you mean, "walk out"?

I think you're conflating ideological philosophy with pragmatism. Currently we factory farm, because we are not yet a technological society that doesn't have to factory farm (we're close). Do I "walk out" at Thanksgiving because my family is eating a factory farmed turkey? No.

The bar is relatively simple. Japanese people do not need to whale, as they have already surpassed a technological level where it makes sense, and their whaling culture was distinctly amplified by a western prescription to feed the populations.

My entire philosophy is predicated on "tit for tat." Or "don't do unto others what you would not have them do unto you were you in their situation." I've found that technological levels are useful for determining what it is that I would not want to be done for me. I would rather, for example, be a dear killed by an impoverished family that can't afford good meat than be a dear that gets killed to be hanged on a wall as a trophy.

It's not an objective quality, it's a moral and ethical quality, and it can be inconsistent, but your attempts to find an inconsistency I've found mundane at best.

[kristopher]

48. "don't do unto others what you would not have them do unto you were you in their situation."

I rest my case.

In two months you'll believe you originated the idea.

[joshcryer]

49. OK

I still think Japanese whaling is immoral and wrong and unnecessary and no justification can be made for it. None.

[kristopher]

50. Good.

But you should carefully review what you wrote because the position you argued from in this subthread does, in fact, provide a point of entry for justification. Your heart is in the right place IMO; it is time to get your words into the same slot.

[joshcryer]

51. Where have I provided a point of entry for justification?

Please explain. I do believe that you are the one who has provided at least one justification, that it's a response to western taboos, etc.

[kristopher]

52. Post #42

And if you think I have ever written that they whale "in response to western taboos" you simply can't read.

I should have known better than to give you the courtesy of a sincere discussion, it is obviously beyond your mandate.

[joshcryer]

53. #42 is a post by you, not me.

We (in America) have extended the umbrella of human compassion to marine mammals and that is the real basis of our effort to halt whaling.

...

Essentially my thesis is that in the modern era, westerners have (for reasons that require a rather long explanation) extended the cannibalism/murder taboo to non-humans.

Western taboos.

Now my point isn't the precision of the numbers, it is that the dishonesty of OUR argument has made the science suspect and provided for the Japanese a firm justification for thumbing their noses at us.

...

They are absolutely within their rights, that's why there is no legal action to prevent what they are doing. And I'm not speculating about your honesty. I'm saying explicitly that the arguments you expressed are false and dishonest. It is relavent because it is this dishonesty that motivates the sense of nationalism which Japanese whalers depend on to shape public opinion in their favor.

From your very own OP, kristopher. Don't feign "insincere discussion" here, I'm the one being sincere. You find virtue in "asking for understanding," and indeed consider it "placing oneself in a vulnerable position." That much is certainly true, as I tried to explain to you my own personal feelings about technology and how it plays into exploiting planetary resources.

And you dismissed it outright with "unfortunate statements of arrogance."

[kristopher]

54. Post 42 explains how your embrace of killing at any level legitimizes it at all levels.

Do you need to pretend such poor reading comprehension?

When they "thumb their nose at us" it is us demanding that they quit while talking as you did in #42. In no sense could my words be interpreted as you are trying to do.

We're done.

[joshcryer]

55. No, it doesn't, and I explained why it doesn't, and you, typically, ignored it.

The context of that comment I believe is whether we are being honest about our issues with their whaling. You think that if we merely express our "cannibalism taboo" they'll understand where we are coming from and stop doing it. And that, your words, our "dishonesty" by not doing so is the reason they "thumb their nose at us."

If you go back and look at my beliefs from a utilitarian point of view, I think there is no need for a technological society to destroy resources, the higher technological you get, the less impact you can have. That completely contradicts your dishonest headline which states that my "embrace at killing at any level legitimizes it at all levels."

[kristopher]

9. A link to the thread was provided.

The issue has not changed one iota in that time, so there is no reason to rewrite a book that has already been written.

What amazes me is your hostility to a suggestion that the perspective of the Japanese is somehow not acceptable to articulate. With that sort of approach is is any wonder that (as I wrote) "the issue has not changed one iota in that time"?

Since many have made the same general argument it wasn't your specific words that I was after. But in any case if you feel that the link wasn't an acceptable credit then you have my apology.

[LeftyMom]

13. You're reading into my argument something that isn't there.

Now stop typing and go read up on how genetic information is used to estimate historical population size. You didn't understand it in 2008, and if you still don't understand it in 2011 you're wasting all of our time. Go read, we'll wait.

[FBaggins]

11. Seems like you're pretty darn close to correct on this one.

I can't speak to every point you make, and your continued paranoia that anyone in favor of nuclear power is out to get you is entertaining... but Greenpeace's strategy for ending Japanese whaling has always struck me as more rational/effective than the SS crew's nutty behavior.

[freshwest]

18. Ah, but the Sea Shepherd videos are so inspiring they've made me cry...

But I long to see less media darlings and more solutions in all environmental matters. The slicker the presentations, the more distrust I feel.

The time has passed that the West can expect the East to bow to us based on moral arguments that sound like bullying. It makes for great drama but poor results. Not that I don't love a little drama, LOL.

[FBaggins]

21. More often than not, they make me laugh.

(In this case I'm speaking of their tv show).

There's usually 30-60 seconds of "action" (direct conflict with some whaler)... and the rest of the time is spent showing that they don't belong in the open ocean... let alone that far south.

But that's a different topic than their tactics compared to ones that might actually help protect whales in the real world.

[freshwest]

23. I wasn't aware they had a TV show, but then I chucked cable. I've only seen them on youtube.

I'm in favor of applying pressure but not dissing the Japanese. All that does is make people more hard-headed and likely to resist listening to the best arguments, which I believe Kristopher has made.

His solution isn't 'sexy' like media presentations are, that garner attention. They would be people putting their mouth and their face up close and personal with people to whom they can get to help.

It would require less hubris and more humility on our part as the former moral authority of the planet. Because we really are, or at least I am, talking heart to heart and that is a delicate place. But once the bond is made, good things can happen.

The win or lose, good and evil dynamic is something that humans like to play around with while our planet is being morphed into something so much less lively than it was meant to be, or could be.