Why Japan persists in hunting whales (BBC)

[eppur_se_muova]

As the International Whaling Commission meets to search for common ground between pro- and anti-whaling nations, the BBC's Chris Hogg reports from a Japanese town showing no sign of giving up on its whale meat.

If you want to understand why the Japanese hunt whales, you need to travel to one of the handful of small coastal communities where they still take them from the sea, a place like Wada.
***
Yoshinori Shoji is the town's whaler. He catches 14 whales every year.
***
He says he accepts the argument that some species need to be protected to prevent them from dying out.
***
But he believes minke whales are abundant, and does not see why others should be able to tell him what he can and cannot hunt off the coast of Japan.
***
more: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7281989.stm

A long, fairly thoughtful article. Clearly, much of the problem lies in differing opinions as to what constitutes a 'sustainable' catch of wild animals whose numbers are not even all that certain, and how best to deal with that uncertainty.

[xchrom]

1. rather it's time to have a discussion that some species

should not be hunted and killed period.

most of us get that there are traditionalists out the -- and even make allowances for folk like first nations people -- but some guy sitting in japan?

please -- in a world of 6 and 1/2 billion people -- or however many there is -- somebody isn't always going to get their way.

[wtmusic]

2. "somebody isn't always going to get their way"

Ain't that the truth. Take 6.5B people and multiple by what we think we're entitled to. Yipes.

[ben_meyers]

4. some guy sitting in japan?

So his culture isn't as valid as a "first nation persons"? How does that work?

[xchrom]

10. billions of people all wanting to do what they want to.

somebody is going to get their feelings hurt -- especially when we're on to something as specialized -- and rare as hunting whales.

few people want to eat whale meat -- and many, many don't want to see it happen at all -- and frankly there is a good argument that some species should not be hunted.

[kristopher]

5. So of course you conclude that the Japanese should yield.

I rest my case.

[kristopher]

3. I don't agree.

I think the problem is rooted in the concept of antiwhaling advocates that killing a whale is murder.

That is a moral value the Japanese as being irrational. I've interviewed hundreds of Japanese on the topic and the common denominator is that the tactics used to oppose whaling are arrogant and not based on reason.

[wtmusic]

6. Extinction isn't a reasonable concern?

The Japanese claim the whales are killed for research. I suppose you believe that too.

[kristopher]

7. Extinction is a reasonable concern.

Why bother answering if you don't read what I wrote.

[wtmusic]

9. Here we go again.

I'll spell it out again, as I seem to often have to do for you:

"I've interviewed hundreds of Japanese on the topic and the common denominator is that the tactics used to oppose whaling are arrogant and not based on reason."

The tactics used to oppose whaling are based on the fact that many species of whales are extinct or nearing extinction.

Extinction = Reasonable Concern. Get it?

[kristopher]

11. There was an entire sentence there, not 4 words.

Here is your challenge:

Explain to a person who does not believe that killing a whale is murder exactly WHY you believe that it is.

Then convince that person that you can set aside this belief and objectively analyze data to determine how many whales they will be able to murder.

Really, please, explain how that works and why this person can trust your analysis.

[wtmusic]

12. What if I don't believe whaling is murder

and I am only concerned about extinction of whale species? Kind of renders your point moot, no?

[kristopher]

15. Shall we go back to the Sea Shepard threads and check your "what if"?

I'm really trying to find an answer to this problem, I'm not just yanking your chain. If I could get some help, I honestly believe I can make an argument that could end the Japanese practice of whaling.

Instead, all I get is reactionary bullshit.

[wtmusic]

16. Paul Watson's rhetoric does a disservice to his cause

The gray whale is officially extinct as of 2007, and at least five of the 13 great whales being listed as endangered. All five were being hunted (up to this year) by Japan.

With this in mind there is no legitimate reason for whaling (leopard steaks, anyone?). The Japanese live on a resourceless island and so they are forced to accept import prices for food. That doesn't give them the right to drive a species living in international waters to extinction.

Not to mention the method of killing whales is by all accounts protracted and cruel.

[kristopher]

18. Thank you but

Your answer begs the question of how those species came to be on the endangered list. Some of them are unquestionably at great risk. The dispute centers around those where there is, shall we say, less certainty about their status as endangered, such as the minke. The Japanese perceive the process for such evaluations to be totally compromised by sentiments like the one expressed by KaptBunnyPants.
That isn't a criticism of her(?) belief. It is an explanation of where the center of this problem lies.
Frankly, I believe you share her(?) feelings but you are being less honest than she(?) is.

What I've seen is that people are extremely reluctant to own this value for fear of being criticized as being irrational. But as Bunnypants points out, it IS arbitrary and (I infer) not a product of logic.

What I believe is that instead of arguing from a perspective that fears admitting the belief because it means potentially losing the credibility to argue the science, we need to bring understanding to the Japanese about the depth and validity of a belief structure we can't change. You see, I share that value. I too believe that the killing of a species that has at least as much brainpower as we do is tantamount to murder.

[wtmusic]

32. Thanks for telling me what I believe and how honest I am.

Although I've presented a completely factual basis for my belief, you want to believe I'm hysterically opposed to whaling because it's murder. Whatever.

The dispute centers around those where there is, shall we say, less certainty about their status as endangered, such as the minke. The Japanese perceive the process for such evaluations to be totally compromised by sentiments like the one expressed by KaptBunnyPants.

As another poster pointed out anti-whalers do not and never did claim the Minke whale is endangered. So taking the extinction argument out, we're still left with the fact that they are killed by a harpoon which explodes inside of them and can take up to 20 minutes to die. To kill any animal in that manner, especially a mammal, is pretty sick.

Instead of arguing from a perspective that fears admitting the belief because it means potentially losing the credibility to argue the science, we need to bring understanding to the Japanese about the depth and validity of a belief structure we can't change.

I guess I have to believe whaling is murder for this to make sense. I don't, so it doesn't.

[kristopher]

34. Re minke on endangered list.

"As another poster pointed out anti-whalers do not and never did claim the Minke whale is endangered."

Actually, on Mar 2 leftymom corrected me when I made the same error re minke on the endangered list. It is, in fact, listed in appendix one of the CITES agreement.

As far as our differences on your possible beliefs, there are two approaches that are commonly employed. I can take you at your word, which is useful and appropriate in some analyses; or I can base my judgment on a sort of discourse analysis which attaches more weight to the individual words and phrases that a person selects as independent indicators of underlying values and beliefs. Each approach has its positives and its negatives. The latter is perhaps more commonly used to determine the structure of mental models that may be common across a group of people. As an easy example, people may link the war in iraq to oil, oil to energy, energy to electricity, and electricity to wind. Based on that they may support the development of wind power as a means to address the war in Iraq. Since only 3% of our electricity comes from oil, and since wind is not directly related to the transportation sector, this model is probably not the best upon which to base a decision regarding wind.
When you are looking for that type of pattern, people often don't articulate it directly because we routinely form these models from incomplete snips of informations that are pretty much unconsciously strung together because of similarity in concept rather than logical step by step problem solving. If we dedicated our rational mind to ensuring proper linkage to all of our sensory input we probably wouldn't function to well.

When you add in a well documented avoidance of candor on certain topics, you can perhaps see the value in having both approaches available. Often, you can observe people deconstruct their own models as the links are explored in the interview.

It's pretty cool IMO. If you are interested in more you might explore discourse analysis or grounded theory.
Of course, This type of analysis is qualitative and has the limitation of only being valid for the person you are talking to. To determine any type of statistical distribution of the model requires well crafted polling.

Hope I haven't offended you too much, I think I'm probably right, but I don't claim perfection.

[wtmusic]

35. No offense, but I don't think you're capable of offending me.

When I make too much logical sense, you claim my argument is based in blind rage using some obtuse theory with questionable applicability to anything. You don't need to make it so complicated - the issue is a relatively straightforward one. Your tack is indicative of wasting too much time and money on graduate school.

I agree you're not perfect. In fact, it takes someone considerably closer to perfection to offend me, or even sway my opinion. ;-)

[kristopher]

36. Logical sense

Interesting post. While strawman (never said blind rage or anything like it) and personal attacks are examples of logic, they generally don't support the claim of "too much logical sense".
And just for the record, I'm not really trying to sway your opinion. I'm more interested in exactly what your thought processes are than in trying to change them. I learned long ago that is trying to change the belief structure of a person with a closed mind is an exercise in futility.


"When I make too much logical sense, you claim my argument is based in blind rage using some obtuse theory with questionable applicability to anything. You don't need to make it so complicated - the issue is a relatively straightforward one. Your tack is indicative of wasting too much time and money on graduate school.

I agree you're not perfect. In fact, it takes someone considerably closer to perfection to offend me, or even sway my opinion."

BTW: When you're good, you don't pay to go to grad school; they pay you. :D

[MaryCeleste]

31. Most anti-whalers agree that Minke's are not endagered

[xchrom]

19. the whale meat is rotting by the tons in japan.

and when asked neutral questions about whaling -- i.e. the yahoo poll that the japanese government went all up in arms about -- the japanese public opposes whaling of any kind.

but when asked questions about sovereignty and cultural protectionism -- the japanese support whaling -- take the bias out.

the whaling industry is a financially failed industry.

more whales are high in pollutants like dioxins -- and fairly dangerous for human consumption -- whether norway or japan is doing the hunting doesn't change that.

things change -- and traditions cut off from their actual cultural anchors have no meaning -- and that is certainly teh case with whaling.

you are defending the indefensible -- not to mention that whales are getting up pretty close to humans on the intelligence and socially complex spectrum -- it really does begin to resemble -- and that again whether the japanese or the norwegians like it or not.

it's inhuman and brutal -- savage. and that's all there is to it.

[kristopher]

21. please take a moment to read the rest of this thread.

[xchrom]

22. i've read the thread and you have no point to make. nt

[kristopher]

23. Wow, you read a survey so you can reject my 11 years living there

while I got my undergrad degree in Japanese studies from a Japanese university.

No wonder we are doing such a great job of stopping them from whaling. :dunce:

[xchrom]

25. anecdotal experience does not = expertise.

:eyes:

[kristopher]

26. Formal study of cultural anthro + years of field research = expertise

[xchrom]

27. then you should provide links

to all of this field research, shouldn't you?

the yahoo poll is out there -- as well as the japanese government poll -- where's yours?

greepeace and the steve irwin back up their claims -- you should as well.

[kristopher]

28. you don't even know what field research is, do you?

That's ok, you're part of it now.

[xchrom]

29. all there is -- is your ''claim'' of expertise --

nothing to evaluate -- nothing to compare it to -- nothing.

greenpeace and others provide data for their claims -- and you? -- not so much.

[kristopher]

33. You are absolutely right.

You should be skeptical - very skeptical - of my claims to expertise. A forum such as this lends itself to false statements.

If you don't find value, on the face of it, in my statements, you should not accept them.

Let me add though, that is not so unusual to actually encounter someone with a high level of expertise in a given area; and if you are knowledgeable of the topic yourself it is usually pretty easy to separate the wheat from the chaff.

What I've stated consistantly is that I share the goal of stopping the Japanese from engaging in the practice of whaling. I disagree with Watson and our negotiating tactics in the IWC while giving my reasons why this is so. Nothing I've said contradicts the polls you cited, my comments do however, go well beyond the scope of what the polls address.

At no time have I criticized or ridiculed anyone for having values that place great importance on the sanctity of cetacean life. Not once.

What I've done is offer my expertise to the effort to halt the practice we both reject.

So you tell me; why would I engage in this conversation if my claims are lies? Could it be that you are so focused on the fight and your anger that you've lost sight of the goal. I mean, if our positions were reversed, I would have probed your claims to ensure a full understanding before I pass judgment.

But that's me; we're obviously different in that regard.

PS Did you know that one "job" for an anthropology degree is gathering the initial data to construct polls? Just thought that seemed relevant somehow...

[GliderGuider]

24. The ethical underpinnings of the opposition

I think a large number of the opponents of the whale hunt are either explicit or implicit followers of the philosophy of Deep Ecology:

Deep ecology is a recent branch of ecological philosophy (ecosophy) that considers humankind an integral part of its environment. Deep ecology places greater value on non-human species, ecosystems and processes in nature than established environmental and green movements. Deep ecology has led to a new system of environmental ethics. The core principle of deep ecology as originally developed is Arne Næss's doctrine of biospheric egalitarianism — the claim that, like humanity, the living environment as a whole has the same right to live and flourish. Deep ecology describes itself as "deep" because it persists in asking deeper questions concerning "why" and "how" and thus is concerned with the fundamental philosophical questions about the impacts of human life as one part of the ecosphere, rather than with a narrow view of ecology as a branch of biological science, and aims to avoid merely utilitarian environmentalism, which it argues is concerned with resource management of the environment for human purposes.

The principles of Deep Ecology provide a moral basis for opposing the exploitation of other species (especially when that results in the deaths of their members) when less intrusive options exist:

1. The well-being and flourishing of human and nonhuman life on Earth have value in themselves (synonyms: intrinsic value, inherent value). These values are independent of the usefulness of the nonhuman world for human purposes.
2. Richness and diversity of life forms contribute to the realization of these values and are also values in themselves.
3. Humans have no right to reduce this richness and diversity except to satisfy vital human needs.
4. The flourishing of human life and cultures is compatible with a substantial decrease of the human population. The flourishing of nonhuman life requires such a decrease.
5. Present human interference with the nonhuman world is excessive, and the situation is rapidly worsening.
6. Policies must therefore be changed. These policies affect basic economic, technological, and ideological structures. The resulting state of affairs will be deeply different from the present.
7. The ideological change is mainly that of appreciating life quality (dwelling in situations of inherent value) rather than adhering to an increasingly higher standard of living. There will be a profound awareness of the difference between big and great.
8. Those who subscribe to the foregoing points have an obligation directly or indirectly to try to implement the necessary changes.

Principle #3 makes it clear that humans have a right to exploit other species for our survival, but enjoins us not to exploit them unnecessarily. In my opinion the Japanese whaling hunt is unnecessary for general survival, and so is a prima facie violation of these principles. While the use of the word "murder" to describe this hunt is somewhat rhetorical, it is making a serious point. The principles of DE place all life on an equal footing. The use of a word usually reserved for purely human judgment is intended to emphasize that it's possible to perceive all life has having the same intrinsic value, and by extension the same intrinsic rights.

[KaptBunnyPants]

8. So when do I get to eat human?

Don't worry. I'll do it sustainably.

[kristopher]

13. Thank you Bunny. (no sarcasm)

If that is really what you feel, please, explain why you believe that to be true.

I keep asking for this and no one will jump in and DEFEND the belief that is motivating them. Inevitably it turns into the sustainability argument because of the inability to justify the moral belief structure that is the real motive.

[KaptBunnyPants]

17. I believe that the only thing that differentiates humans from other animals is our intelligence.

Therefore, if we can all agree that it's wrong to kill intelligent humans, then I would extend that to near-human intelligence level animals. Dolphins, whales, gorillas, chimps, even monkeys ought to be off-limits. It's arbitrary, but then all moral arguments are. If wage slavery is ok, why not real slavery? And why should murder of people be considered wrong in the first place? These are all arbitrary beliefs that others may not agree with, but if the Japanese wish to be considered barbaric and frankly evil, they can continue to do practices like those in this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzuSULcqgxQ

Of course, some people would extend my principle further, and claim that all animals are too intelligent to be slaughtered for food. They're not wrong, but they are also not popular, so they're judgment has less of an impact on the image of cow/chicken/fish eaters. I'm young, and somewhat of a Japanophle, so I was very disappointed to find out that a people I had so respected behave in such disgusting ways.

[kristopher]

20. You are the first to be so honest.

Thank you. I would urge you, however, to be a little more tolerant of the japanese. If what I suspect is happening is true, they can no more change their thinking than you can. They can, however, change their actions; and I believe that effecting this change is mostly a matter of making the request of them in a way that both addresses their anger at our perceived arrogance and dishonorable manner of negotiating on this topic, and makes them understand the validity of the belief structure we hold as one that is reasonable.

I'm pretty sure I know the message, what I'm having trouble with is the means of delivery.

Is anyone interested in forming an online working group to discuss this?

[Warpy]

14. I have no problem with subsistence whalers among the Inuit.

I do have a problem with the big factory ships that went out and scooped up all the whales they could find for a luxury market for whale meat back home.

I don't have a huge problem with this man in the article since he's not scouring the globe and he is supplying one village from his country's waters.

Factory fishing, like factory farming, ruins the very resource it's trying to exploit.

[losthills]

30. There is no legitimate reason

for anyone on this earth to kill a whale any more.

Leave them alone.