Japan resumes commercial whaling after 30 years(bbc.com)
bbc.com
Japan resumes commercial whaling after 30 years
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-48821797
110 comments
As they say it’s not “but”, rather “yes, and” so I agree with that and would add that the likely sentience of whales is a huge factor here.
If whales are hunted sustainably what is the big deal? I am genuinely asking why whales are off the menu but other mammals and fish are not.
I strongly believe that any wildlife hunting/fishing should be prohibited, no matter if it's recreational or for selling.
If it isn't grown specifically for farming/hunting/fishing on a farm/elsewhere, then hard no. Wildlife just doesn't has any chance against modern technology.
If it isn't grown specifically for farming/hunting/fishing on a farm/elsewhere, then hard no. Wildlife just doesn't has any chance against modern technology.
This is a pretty uneducated world view. Some species population is purely controlled by their food supply, predators, or disease vectors, eg: deer. They're a massive pestilence in many areas because humans have displaced their natural predators, increased their food supply, and have reduced diseases. As a result, it's incredible important to thin their numbers in a cycle that would mimic the course of natural cycles. That's why Rifle and Bow seasons issue are carefully permitted and populations are counted all year. Hunters are the single largest group in the USA contributing to preservation of habitat.
Yes, if humans have adopted an ecologically vital role as an apex predator in certain spaces (like with hunting deer, boar, or fishing certain species), we shouldn't artificially remove ourselves from the ecosystem.
Wildlife didn’t stand a chance against bows and traps either when applied too often. It’s not the tech, it’s the frequency.
Your stance doesn’t match current conservation best practices. Best practice is to determine ideal population balance and help that occur. Deer hunting is a necessity in much of the US to have any regular population control.
Your stance doesn’t match current conservation best practices. Best practice is to determine ideal population balance and help that occur. Deer hunting is a necessity in much of the US to have any regular population control.
>I strongly believe that any wildlife hunting/fishing should be prohibited, no matter if it's recreational or for selling.
In some cases, culling of certain wild animal populations is actually beneficial to the ecosystem, e.g. in the case of invasive species, or certain native species whose populations have become unsustainably fast-growing due to external factors (habitat changes; predator or prey population changes, etc.).
In some cases, culling of certain wild animal populations is actually beneficial to the ecosystem, e.g. in the case of invasive species, or certain native species whose populations have become unsustainably fast-growing due to external factors (habitat changes; predator or prey population changes, etc.).
Humans would meet the criteria for an invasive species.
What point are you trying to make? Let invasive species flourish uncontrolled? Cull the human population?
The latter, presumably: Culling humanity for its own good is generally considered immoral, while it is deemed acceptable in case of nonhuman animals. That mismatch requires justification.
>That mismatch requires justification.
Only when looking through the lens of fringe ideologies. The overwhelming majority of humans don't subscribe to moral ideologies that ascribe equivalent moral standing to humans and nonhuman animals.
Only when looking through the lens of fringe ideologies. The overwhelming majority of humans don't subscribe to moral ideologies that ascribe equivalent moral standing to humans and nonhuman animals.
It also took quite a while for people to come up with the concept of universal human rights, we're still bad at overcoming tribalism, and basing morality on majority vote isn't necessarily the best idea.
That aside, you're right that I also do not assign equal moral standing to humans and nonhumans. However, that does not mean that the same arguments that make me reject culling humans don't also apply to other animals to some degree. I would argue the ethically most defensible approach would be nonlethal fertility regulation.
That aside, you're right that I also do not assign equal moral standing to humans and nonhumans. However, that does not mean that the same arguments that make me reject culling humans don't also apply to other animals to some degree. I would argue the ethically most defensible approach would be nonlethal fertility regulation.
"My heart is overflowing with happiness, and I'm deeply moved," said Yoshifumi Kai, head of the Japan Small-Type Whaling Association. "People have hunted whales for more than 400 years in my hometown."- Just because something has long-standing traditions, doesn't mean that should be continued.
We used to burn people for witchcraft and did so for a long time.
We used to burn people for witchcraft and did so for a long time.
What if we allow people to hunt whales, but they have to do it using 17th century technology, so that it’s not easy to overhunt?
This is the perfect rejoinder to "but muh cultural heritage". If you want to break out the "400 year old tradition" argument, you shouldn't get to use modern industrial whaling technology.
"the culture and way of life will be passed on to the next generation."
In certain states, fathers take their sons to KKK rally's to pass on their "culture and way of life", does not make it right.......
In certain states, fathers take their sons to KKK rally's to pass on their "culture and way of life", does not make it right.......
no better idea let them be subjected to hearing the whale scream in agony during the killing on autorepeat
> We used to burn people for witchcraft and did so for a long time.
Maybe it's just time that we resume that practice.
Maybe it's just time that we resume that practice.
Don't get the downvote. I thought this was midly funny.
Non-substantive comments are frowned upon. So's commentary on voting, for that matter.
Cf https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Cf https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Shame on you, Japanese government. Shame on you.
Please don't post unsubstantive comments to HN, and especially not indignant flamebait. It's directly against the purpose of this site, and it invites worse from others.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
It's not like that Japanese government is consuming the whale meat. So why only blame it? seems deliberately missing the target.
Because I did not want to blame the whole people for it. But those in charge.
Because consumers aren't capable of international treaties, which is the only mechanism that ended whaling.
Consumers are well capable of voting in Japan though, isn't it?
Because there is only one Japanese federal government and Abe is supporting whaling at around the level of $50 million a year?
Most Japanese may support whaling, but don't actually eat the meat. The government has also been requiring whale meat in school lunches which has upset parents who don't want their kids eating whale meat, for either ethical reasons or the sheer amount of toxins that accumulate in whale meat.
Blaming the government is much more useful than blaming the public - policy can be changed, their position is articulated in press releases and documents. Trying to capture the diversity of the Japanese population and hold it accountable is an exercise in futility and is just muddying the waters.
Most Japanese may support whaling, but don't actually eat the meat. The government has also been requiring whale meat in school lunches which has upset parents who don't want their kids eating whale meat, for either ethical reasons or the sheer amount of toxins that accumulate in whale meat.
Blaming the government is much more useful than blaming the public - policy can be changed, their position is articulated in press releases and documents. Trying to capture the diversity of the Japanese population and hold it accountable is an exercise in futility and is just muddying the waters.
For responding to their citizens instead of foreign activists?
[flagged]
Didn't we just have to tell you not to perpetuate a completely different flamewar on HN? If you keep posting like this we are going to have to ban you.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
I honestly didn't think that anyone here would have a problem with me relating large-scale whaling to genocide. I thought we were all against poaching?
Again, I had no intention of flaming anyone and if you noticed, I did not engage in any argument.
Again, I had no intention of flaming anyone and if you noticed, I did not engage in any argument.
Better is relative, if large enough number of citizen want genocide then genocide will be legal.
[flagged]
Please don't feed flamewars on this site.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
On reflection, you're right that I should try harder not to respond in short/snarky ways with those who are short and snarky with me. I do have a tendency to do that...
Regarding point 2, I don't know... the whole "I'm not better than anyone else" should be only part of your sentiment. If you think "I'm not better than anybody, including the least educated parcel of the populace, I don't have better ideas, better judgement, better views... well I guess then I sould go run for office", I doubt you'll be much good for the rest of society. You should be humble, and be able to truly check yourself when in a position of power. But the history of human societies is plagued with terrible beliefs and ideas about the world, and yes, better beliefs and ideas came about. We should hope that they continue to win over the bad ones.
I mostly agree actually. That's a quick reaction to something poorly phrased in a way that sounds pretty disturbing. In more detail, it's fine for somebody running for office to say that they believe in some particular set of ideas and explain why they think they're better than opposing ideas, and why people should vote for them and support them. It's much more troublesome for someone already in power to take up a position they did not run on and that people generally oppose, try to implement it anyways, and jam propaganda at those who oppose you.
Or basically, like I said in my first comment in the chain, politicians in a healthy democracy should be responsive to their own citizens first, not to foreign activist groups that don't represent that culture and never had to stand for election among those people.
Or basically, like I said in my first comment in the chain, politicians in a healthy democracy should be responsive to their own citizens first, not to foreign activist groups that don't represent that culture and never had to stand for election among those people.
I would love to explain to you how you're wrong but I can already see where this is headed and I already got rate-limited last night from a stupid discussion. For the record though I am not in agreement with mass surveillance.
Just in time! The humpback whale is just starting to recover its population.
What can the Whaling Association do about it?
They have any power what so ever? something like EU and Brexit?
They have any power what so ever? something like EU and Brexit?
From what I’ve read, they have vastly less power than the EU. But it is similar in the sense that you are always allowed to leave at any time. Unlike Brexit, I don’t think there’s any significant tidying up or trade relations involved.
Faroe Islands and Norway catch more whales than Japan [1] but for some reason don't receive nearly the same level of outrage.
[1] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Whales_Nordic.png
[1] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Whales_Nordic.png
That another country is also evil doesn't make what Japan is doing any better. They both need to stop.
There is increasing evidence that whales have a huge role in climate change. Their poop feeds plankton which in turn absorbs carbon. And their physical bodies when they die sink, moving significant amounts of carbon to the bottom where is stays in that ecosystem far away from the atmosphere.
If the Japanese and Norwegians don't care about killing such magnificent animals for food, perhaps they can be taught to value them as ecological partners in the fight against climate change.
There is increasing evidence that whales have a huge role in climate change. Their poop feeds plankton which in turn absorbs carbon. And their physical bodies when they die sink, moving significant amounts of carbon to the bottom where is stays in that ecosystem far away from the atmosphere.
If the Japanese and Norwegians don't care about killing such magnificent animals for food, perhaps they can be taught to value them as ecological partners in the fight against climate change.
That other countries exceed Japan in whale killing certainly doesn't absolve Japan of any moral responsibility. But that the other (white, European) nations receive so little public shaming or backlash for their whale killing relative to Japan seems to suggest there is some sort of pervasive bias influencing media coverage.
> That another country is also evil doesn't make what Japan is doing any better. They both need to stop.
While true, it looks bad for people who are on the fence and/or are ambivalent. If the people expressing the outrage aren't outraged about the whaling in the Faroe islands, it looks like they don't really care about stopping whaling but instead just want to protest for the sake of it (or they're racists against the Japanese, etc).
While true, it looks bad for people who are on the fence and/or are ambivalent. If the people expressing the outrage aren't outraged about the whaling in the Faroe islands, it looks like they don't really care about stopping whaling but instead just want to protest for the sake of it (or they're racists against the Japanese, etc).
It is true that I am probably not angry enough about the Faroe whale slaughter, but they are much further away from me than Japan. I live on Canada's west coast, where Greenpeace began. There are far more flights between Vancouver and Tokyo than Vancouver and the Faroe Islands, and many more business and government connections. So it should be no surprise that I am more angry at Japan.
I am also no fan of the Canadian arctic whale harvest. That it is classified as "aboriginal whaling", and is much smaller, makes no difference to me. Dead whales are dead whales regardless who is killing them.
I am also no fan of the Canadian arctic whale harvest. That it is classified as "aboriginal whaling", and is much smaller, makes no difference to me. Dead whales are dead whales regardless who is killing them.
I believe there are still occasional whale hunts in the strait of juan de fuca, by the Makah Trube from Neah Bay.
So just kill the whales and let them sink to help the climate then?
> That another country is also evil doesn't make what Japan is doing any better.
For ease of reference, the non-Latinate name for this flavour of the tu quoque fallacy seems to be 'whataboutism' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism).
For ease of reference, the non-Latinate name for this flavour of the tu quoque fallacy seems to be 'whataboutism' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism).
I don't mean to complain about downvoting, but, in case the downvotes are based on misinterpretation rather than disagreement: I was not accusing sandworm101 (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20327379) of engaging in a fallacy; rather, I meant to point out that the argument sandworm101 was correctly rebutting corresponded to a named fallacy.
Fun facts:
- Japan learned modern whaling (and bought ships/tools) from Norway, over 100 years ago
- Norway's last catch of Minke whales (the only whales they hunt, supposedly) was about 1,052, out of an estimated ~100,000.
- Japan has recently hunted a variety of threatened and endangered species, such as Beaked, Minke, Bryde's, Sei, Northern Fin, Humpback, Sperm, Western Gray, and North Pacific Right.
- A significant percentage of whales caught are by-catch of other fishing operations, which critics claim is often intentional.
- Since 1988, Japan has caught 16,323 whales through "Special Permit Catches".
- The research group that does the whaling gets its funding from the Japanese government, and Kyodo Senpaku, the company that processes and markets the whale meat.
- The International Court of Justice declared in 2014 that Japan's whaling was not for any scientific purpose.
From these facts, I gather that the problem is that Norway is catching a "reasonable" amount of whales that are not threatened, and that Japan was catching endangered and threatened species in large numbers and lying about the intention behind it.
- Japan learned modern whaling (and bought ships/tools) from Norway, over 100 years ago
- Norway's last catch of Minke whales (the only whales they hunt, supposedly) was about 1,052, out of an estimated ~100,000.
- Japan has recently hunted a variety of threatened and endangered species, such as Beaked, Minke, Bryde's, Sei, Northern Fin, Humpback, Sperm, Western Gray, and North Pacific Right.
- A significant percentage of whales caught are by-catch of other fishing operations, which critics claim is often intentional.
- Since 1988, Japan has caught 16,323 whales through "Special Permit Catches".
- The research group that does the whaling gets its funding from the Japanese government, and Kyodo Senpaku, the company that processes and markets the whale meat.
- The International Court of Justice declared in 2014 that Japan's whaling was not for any scientific purpose.
From these facts, I gather that the problem is that Norway is catching a "reasonable" amount of whales that are not threatened, and that Japan was catching endangered and threatened species in large numbers and lying about the intention behind it.
The outrage is at the announcement that one more country is now allowing it. But you probably knew that.
It should also be noted that the majority of the whale meat produced by these countries is sold to Japan.
What I don’t get is that Minkes are not endangered (least concern), so I might go along with that, so why do they also target Brydes and Sei which don’t have healthy populations? That’s a bad move that will serve to embolden (rightly) people who are against whaling.
The outrage is that they're whaling in a conservation area in the Southern Ocean. The other reason is other countries have determined their "scientific" whaling has no actual scientific basis:
Japan is not the only nation to hunt whales. Norway has a commercial operation in its own waters, for example. But what infuriates conservationists is that Japan is hunting and killing whales in a conservation zone, the Southern Ocean whaling sanctuary, that surrounds Antarctica. Japan claims that it does so only for scientific purposes.
Then, a few years ago, the International Court of Justice – at the instigation of Australia and New Zealand – ruled that the country’s whaling plan had no scientific basis. Japan was forced to halt whale hunting and had to come back with a plan to carry out “scientific whaling” in the region. This now involves catching only 330 minkes, and no humpbacks or fin whales. It was an important victory for conservationists.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/dec/23/sea-shep...
Japan is not the only nation to hunt whales. Norway has a commercial operation in its own waters, for example. But what infuriates conservationists is that Japan is hunting and killing whales in a conservation zone, the Southern Ocean whaling sanctuary, that surrounds Antarctica. Japan claims that it does so only for scientific purposes.
Then, a few years ago, the International Court of Justice – at the instigation of Australia and New Zealand – ruled that the country’s whaling plan had no scientific basis. Japan was forced to halt whale hunting and had to come back with a plan to carry out “scientific whaling” in the region. This now involves catching only 330 minkes, and no humpbacks or fin whales. It was an important victory for conservationists.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/dec/23/sea-shep...
The news is that now they will do commercial whaling in Japan rather than “scientific” whaling in Antartica.
That is curious. I had known about Iceland hunting whales and was upset about it but I wasn’t aware that Norway also did this. Also I forgot the Faroe Islands existed.
What?! If I don't know about it, just imagine how many "average" people like me who are out of the loop when it comes to ocean animals. How can the world powers come together to sign a ban on this? This is awful.
> How can the world powers come together to sign a ban on this?
They did. Japan, Norway, etc. ignore it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Whaling_Commissi...
They did. Japan, Norway, etc. ignore it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Whaling_Commissi...
I see nothing wrong with sustainably farming whales like any other animal. Certain species have been endangered and those should be protected, but responsible consumption of traditional foods is an important way to preserve culture.
From what I’ve gathered, Japanese whaling is about as traditional as British rule of Africa, India, and America.
Although the article quotes a hunter claiming their village has done it for 400 years, it also later says “A number of coastal communities in Japan have hunted whales for centuries but consumption only became widespread after World War Two when other food was scarce.”
Also, whales aren’t being farmed, they’re just being hunted.
Although the article quotes a hunter claiming their village has done it for 400 years, it also later says “A number of coastal communities in Japan have hunted whales for centuries but consumption only became widespread after World War Two when other food was scarce.”
Also, whales aren’t being farmed, they’re just being hunted.
What is the correct amount of time for a tradition to exist before it deserves to be protected?
There's no tradition that should ever be protected just because it's a tradition.
If people want to do something that's a tradition and is totally harmless, that's fine, but then it shouldn't need any protection. You only need "protection" because there's some reason the tradition can't continue without it.
If people want to do something that's a tradition and is totally harmless, that's fine, but then it shouldn't need any protection. You only need "protection" because there's some reason the tradition can't continue without it.
It's not a question of whether new traditions deserve to be protected. Of course many do.
It's a question of whether argument-from-tradition is a valid argument for continuing a practice. For relatively new "traditions", it's not. You need other reasons.
It's a question of whether argument-from-tradition is a valid argument for continuing a practice. For relatively new "traditions", it's not. You need other reasons.
We, as a species, are also any other animal.
At the moment, there's very little we can tell about the exact make up of their intelligence.
Imagine, with your current intelligence, growing up in a world where you can move in three dimensions which has poor visibility but carries sounds very well. There are no fixed spots, so there is no "here". You also have no opposable thumbs, so you will never create tools or written records.
Now imagine that evolving over eons and generation upon generation: you might end up with a world view, a culture, and thought process that is complete alien.
What we observe as whale-songs might simply be them re-telling their Edda in an Ent-like fashion. We might be inadvertently hunting members of a species that is intellectually equal to ours, but too alien to understand.
At the moment, there's very little we can tell about the exact make up of their intelligence.
Imagine, with your current intelligence, growing up in a world where you can move in three dimensions which has poor visibility but carries sounds very well. There are no fixed spots, so there is no "here". You also have no opposable thumbs, so you will never create tools or written records.
Now imagine that evolving over eons and generation upon generation: you might end up with a world view, a culture, and thought process that is complete alien.
What we observe as whale-songs might simply be them re-telling their Edda in an Ent-like fashion. We might be inadvertently hunting members of a species that is intellectually equal to ours, but too alien to understand.
Humpback whales have been known to protect other species (eg seals or gray whales) from orcas. Also, not all 'killer whales' are created equal: Some populations restrict their diet to fish and don't hunt mammals at all.
It's not impossible that some animals besides humans could be capable of moral reasoning at that level. On the flip side, let's hope intelligent life forms from an environment totally alien to us never arrive here and get a taste for human flesh...
It's not impossible that some animals besides humans could be capable of moral reasoning at that level. On the flip side, let's hope intelligent life forms from an environment totally alien to us never arrive here and get a taste for human flesh...
>Humpback whales have been known to protect other species (eg seals or gray whales) from orcas.
I wonder what the humpbacks have against orcas.
>let's hope intelligent life forms from an environment totally alien to us never arrive here and get a taste for human flesh...
If they have a book with the title "To Serve Man", run for the hills.[1]
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_Serve_Man_(The_Twilight_Zon...
I wonder what the humpbacks have against orcas.
>let's hope intelligent life forms from an environment totally alien to us never arrive here and get a taste for human flesh...
If they have a book with the title "To Serve Man", run for the hills.[1]
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_Serve_Man_(The_Twilight_Zon...
Whale hunting is not sustainable. They are animals that live very long lives, and reproduce very slowly.
Sure, if they 'preserved their culture' by whaling in traditional wooden craft in Japanese waters that would be fine, but they bring their mechanized slaughter factories deep into Southern Oceans around New Zealand and Antarctica where local whale sightseeing (tourism) is a far more sustainable and ecological enterprise.
[deleted]
I'm pretty uncomfortable with hunting animals as intelligent as whales and elephants.
Ultimately its a preference, whoever can force the other side to follow (persuasively or physically) will be the winner.
ufmace(1)
agree 100% - it's difficult with some industries to enforce this, but it's important not to dismiss culture and keep it alive.
Nah, that's the whole thing about "culture". It's not real. It's not tangible. It's a personal feeling.
My father grew up in northern Illinois (where I was born and lived until a teen) and bemoaned the tearing down of the confederate monuments in the south, to which I rolled my eyes. Meanwhile parents strongly celebrated a Scottish heritage generations removed and comprising about 10% of my actual ancestors.
Cultures change. They evolve. They eat themselves, absorb other cultures, and sometimes fade from existence. It's all as important as you want it to be.
That said, if your culture needs to kill whales for funsies, I'm going to go ahead and personally say your culture isn't something I support and would prefer went away.
My father grew up in northern Illinois (where I was born and lived until a teen) and bemoaned the tearing down of the confederate monuments in the south, to which I rolled my eyes. Meanwhile parents strongly celebrated a Scottish heritage generations removed and comprising about 10% of my actual ancestors.
Cultures change. They evolve. They eat themselves, absorb other cultures, and sometimes fade from existence. It's all as important as you want it to be.
That said, if your culture needs to kill whales for funsies, I'm going to go ahead and personally say your culture isn't something I support and would prefer went away.
> I see nothing wrong with sustainably farming whales like any other animal.
Japan has never cared about sustainable whale-hunting before.
Japan has never cared about sustainable whale-hunting before.
Note that "scientific" whaling by Japan hadn't stopped during that time frame; I put scientific in quotes because its scientific value was discutable
"A stove boat or a dead whale." ― Herman Melville
This should be the bargain. If you are going to hunt whales, the whales should have a chance to hunt you back. Require the use of oar powered wooden whaleboats, hand thrown harpoons, manila ropes. There is no sportsmanship in the way the japanese do it now.
This should be the bargain. If you are going to hunt whales, the whales should have a chance to hunt you back. Require the use of oar powered wooden whaleboats, hand thrown harpoons, manila ropes. There is no sportsmanship in the way the japanese do it now.
I had a similar thought when reading about hunters gassing hibernating bears out of their caves to kill them from far with a high powered rifle as the bear stumbles out in a stupor.
Should be required to enter the cave with a pocket knife.
Should be required to enter the cave with a pocket knife.
I had hoped when there was an exposé about whale meat, poisoned with heavy metals, being fed to students that this would discourage the practice in Japan: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-japan-whalemeat/whalemeat...
Sadly no. (I also got the impression that people didn't want to eat whale meat, which was why it was being foisted onto kids.)
Do the countries that hunt whales test the whale meat systematically?
Sadly no. (I also got the impression that people didn't want to eat whale meat, which was why it was being foisted onto kids.)
Do the countries that hunt whales test the whale meat systematically?
It is a nostalgia thing tied to "traditional values". Whale meat was served in schools generations ago. Young people don't want it but the elderly still like to enjoy foods from their youth. Old people, seeing the changing culture, want whale meat in schools because they want the kids to be more like the were, like they remember they were when they were kids. It is pure retro nostalgia.
""I'm a bit nervous but happy that we can start whaling," one whaler told AFP news agency before setting sail. "I don't think young people know how to cook and eat whale meat any more. I want more people try to taste it at least once.""
I don't know that whale meat is economically viable.
I don't know that whale meat is economically viable.
""I'm a bit nervous but happy that we can start selling tobacco," one tobacconist told AFP news agency before opening shop. "I don't think young people know how to chew and smoke tobacco any more. I want more people try to smoke it at least once.""
If schools were giving out free samples of tobacco, marijuana, heroin, meth, etc., and urging kids to try it, how well would that go over?
If schools were giving out free samples of tobacco, marijuana, heroin, meth, etc., and urging kids to try it, how well would that go over?
Some of the kids might actually like that and start asking for more. Regarding whale meat, I am not so sure.
I don't understand the sheer bone-headed stubbornness of Japanese whaling, given that nobody even likes or eats whale. Who is pushing so hard for this, in the face of international condemnation? And why? Don't tell me it's "traditional" - modern whale hunting bears no resemblance to its "traditional" roots. Do people really care so much about seeing whale on shop shelves, even though they don't actually care to eat it? Is it a childish backlash against being told what to do? What is it?
In the US, I suggest we'd blame the whaling industry and its lobby.
Conservation aside, most Japanese don't like it or eat it because it tastes bad, isn't clean, and is increasingly expensive.
My mother growing up in post-war Japan was fed whale meat in school lunches. It used to be eaten as a necessity, a cheap hunter-gatherer protein in the wake of the devastating war. It tasted really bad she says, and she doesn't seek it out, but for reasons of nostalgia and because it's now expensive it seems to have become a delicacy for others.
My mother growing up in post-war Japan was fed whale meat in school lunches. It used to be eaten as a necessity, a cheap hunter-gatherer protein in the wake of the devastating war. It tasted really bad she says, and she doesn't seek it out, but for reasons of nostalgia and because it's now expensive it seems to have become a delicacy for others.
raverbashing(2)
I am not suggesting that whaling is not harmful to the environment. But for me overfishing of tuna etc is much more dangerous because of its scale and economic impact. We need to find a way to fish sustainably, before the ocean ecosystem is damaged beyond repair and we lost our fisheries forever.