in addition, I see where you were talking about "moral high-ground", but does one need to be at the top of the hill to be doing good? Can't one be at the foot of the hill and still be doing good?

Using a familial relationship was apt. They are ignoring much larger issues at home to point a finger at a foreign country doing something "less evil".

Keep in mind that no one here is doing any good, they are just gathering attention. Nothing has been accomplished other than getting right wingers to dig in and support whaling as a nationalism issue. Left alone whaling would have probably disappeared because it's less cost effective than importing other forms of protein. All the money, time, and effort going to them could have gone to actual concrete things, instead of to create public awareness of their "save whales because they are beautiful" cause. The awareness wasn't even made where it should have been made, in Japan. The only awareness they have here is "look at these crazy people throwing acid, ramming ships, and shining lasers into people's eyes". Instead of buying boats they should have just launched a local media campaign.

bizarrojosh Wrote:in addition, I see where you were talking about "moral high-ground", but does one need to be at the top of the hill to be doing good? Can't one be at the foot of the hill and still be doing good?

They are at the foot of the hill talking down to someone halfway up the hill. That shouldn't be physically possible.

Jarvik7 Wrote:They are at the foot of the hill talking down to someone halfway up the hill. That shouldn't be physically possible.

I'm sorry, you lost me. Did the fisherman cease their murdering, and start saving sentient lives at some point?

Totally throwing this out there but anyone who has 3 kids is an environmental terrorist. They increase the population which puts further strain on resources. They are the real concern. Only need 2 children, 1 to replace you and 1 to replace your partner. More than that is surplus...

And no one seems to realise this.

Mezbup, if only the human race disappeared, the Earth's problems would be solved.

mezbup Wrote:Totally throwing this out there but anyone who has 3 kids is an environmental terrorist. They increase the population which puts further strain on resources. They are the real concern. Only need 2 children, 1 to replace you and 1 to replace your partner. More than that is surplus...

And no one seems to realise this.

Wait, I always thought you'd need 2,1 children.

[Katsuo]

From an environmental perspective...

Many anti-whalers cite environmental reasons for their stance, but surely taking a tiny and sustainable proportion of wild animals is a way of living in harmony with nature. This years' minke whale catch was less than 0.1% of the total population.

Compared to farming, in which an area of land is cleared of all plants and wildlife and replaced by just one kind of animal for human use, isn't sustainable hunting more environmentally friendly?

Jarvik7 Wrote:Left alone whaling would have probably disappeared because it's less cost effective than importing other forms of protein.

I don't give a damn about whaling, either way (mostly because I refuse to take a stand on an issue that I haven't actually researched). But, this just doesn't seem to be true. I think Japan has a very bad record with other species which they continue to exploit even when it's not cost-effective.

If we're gonna complain about Japan killing a species, we should really be talking about the hawksbill turtle. Now, you can buy hawksbill turtle shell guitar picks in every good guitar store in Japan (I know about this problem because I bought one, only later to find out how shitty hawksbill turtles are doing). You can buy guitars made with hawksbill turtle pick guards. And, in fact, high quality shamisen picks are made mostly of a crap-ton of hawksbill turtle shell. It's been illegal to sell hawksbill turtle items in American since 1973. Since then, it was declared an endangered species in 1982, and critically endangered in 1996. You can make guitar picks out of more cost-effective things, shamisen picks too(as a matter a fact, an American company has figured out how to grow the protein in a lab, almost identical to the turtle shell). And it really doesn't even matter what a pick guard is made out of. It's not cost-effective, but people are still killing tons of these turtles a year even though they're much much much worse off than the whales that are being hunted.

Or, how about how some Japanese guitar companies are still making guitars out of Brazilian rosewood (also illegal in most other countries for the last 40 years). Or, for fun, check out what happened when it temporarily became legal to sell ivory again for two years starting in 1999, and how all the businesses in Japan knew that most of the ivory was black market ivory, but everyone kept selling and buying it anyway because ivory hanko is such a status symbol.

Katsuo Wrote:From an environmental perspective...

Many anti-whalers cite environmental reasons for their stance, but surely taking a tiny and sustainable proportion of wild animals is a way of living in harmony with nature. This years' minke whale catch was less than 0.1% of the total population.

Compared to farming, in which an area of land is cleared of all plants and wildlife and replaced by just one kind of animal for human use, isn't sustainable hunting more environmentally friendly?

To be honest, they're both completely unsustainable. Factory farming causes deforestation, desertification, water contamination, pollution/ green house gas emissions and the list goes on.

Hunting on the other hand depends on a small amount of wild animals feeding a large amount of people. As soon as a large market opens up for any wild animal, its extinction is soon to swiftly follow. Fishing is no exception. Fishing is the largest form of hunting in the world, it is estimated that approximately 90% of the fish in the ocean have been killed since the beginning of the industrial revolution. In other words, the oceans are being emptied of fish at an amazing rate.

So from an environmental point of view, I certainly wouldn't say bush-meat is sustainable.

kill the people, less people to feed = less stress on the environment.

Farming vegetables on a scale suitable to feed humanity, especially if done organically, is also environmentally devastating. The issue here is the size of humanity, not the act of getting food. The inability to get fertilizer without the manure from cow farming would also likely be a major hurdle. Japan used to use human feces to fertilize crops, but that leads to disease (infection from cow to human requires the disease to adapt across species) and isn't in high enough supply to feed the world.

While both cow farming and whale hunting may be unsustainable, one leads to more devastation at a faster rate than the other. It's the lesser of two evils. Personally I prefer beef to whale though :/

Ultimately the only solution is a drastic reduction in the human population, either through people taking responsibility for their reproduction, an outbreak of disease, natural disaster, war, etc

The first will never happen on a scale large enough to make a difference, the rest are only a matter of time (there have been numerous bottleneck events in the past).

Jarvik7 Wrote:Farming vegetables on a scale suitable to feed humanity, especially if done organically, is also environmentally devastating. The issue here is the size of humanity, not the act of getting food. The inability to get fertilizer without the manure from cow farming would also likely be a major hurdle. Japan used to use human feces to fertilize crops, but that leads to disease (infection from cow to human requires the disease to adapt across species) and isn't in high enough supply to feed the world.

While both cow farming and whale hunting may be unsustainable, one leads to more devastation at a faster rate than the other. It's the lesser of two evils. Personally I prefer beef to whale though :/

Ultimately the only solution is a drastic reduction in the human population, either through people taking responsibility for their reproduction, an outbreak of disease, natural disaster, war, etc

The first will never happen on a scale large enough to make a difference, the rest are only a matter of time (there have been numerous bottleneck events in the past).

Large scale plant farming is also devastating, that is true. Compared to animal agriculture however, the effect is far less. To quote my earlier comment:
"...it takes 20 times more land to produce food for a meat-eater than a vegan, animal farming contributes to 51% of Global Warming, and is the leading cause of deforestation and desertification. A cow eats 10 times more plant matter than volume in flesh it outputs." It takes 500 litres of water to produce a kilo of potatoes, it takes 100, 000 litres of water to produced a kilo of beef. 90% of the corn and 80% of the grain in the US goes to feeding livestock alone. That's enough food to feed the entire US population five times over, completely wasted on feeding livestock.
Any way you cut it, animal agriculture is a completely unnecessary, environmental disaster.


As for fertiliser, there are scores of vegan alternatives out there which will do the job just as well.

thecite Wrote:Any way you cut it, animal agriculture is a completely unnecessary, environmental disaster.

Except, you know, the fact that meat is the best food. I'm willing to bet that 50% of the people who have been vegans/vegetarians for 1-2 years would give it up if they ate a good meal with meat. So yeah, it takes more space and water, but good things are expensive, you get what you pay for.

And in case you're wondering, yes, I DO support eating dog and cat. I even have a pet dog myself. Who cares, it's not like I'm going to eat MY dog. You can eat dogs in many parts of the world, who am I to say it's wrong just because I happen to own a dog?

Not all meat-eaters are hypocrites.

I'm vegetarian (I eat eggs, so not vegan), but only for environmental reasons - in fact for the reason you cited thecite about trophic efficiency. However, I have no qualms about animal conditions or cruelty. Animals are killed in the wild, they suffer because life involves suffering. The same happens when they are hunted, and I really don't think this is a problem. Hunting is by far preferable to farming, as IS more sustainable especially in the case of fishing if exercised in a controlled manner. I'd prefer the world to be vegetarian - we'd be able to avert our approaching food and water crises this way - but frankly it's not gonna happen. People eating fish is better than them eating meat because it contributes almost nothing to land degradation and climate change.

There should be control of whaling, but it shouldn't be banned. It's better than farming, and you can't end both. Concentrate your efforts on ending farming instead. I agree with Jarvik that you are fighting the wrong battle. I'm not as angry about it, but I really do think Sea Shephard are doing more harm than good. They're pissing everyone off, which is not good for wider conservation concerns. Animal rights activists in general are harmful to conservation - they are extremists and give a negative image to the entire environmental world by associating themselves with it.

For the record, if I did eat meat I would happily eat dogs, cats and any other animal I was fond of during life. Once something is dead, it's dead. It really doesn't matter what you do with the carcass. Also, I used to eat meat, and made the choice to stop, so I think you're wrong Tobberoth about vegetarians and vegans really wanting to eat meat.

Thecite I used to think similarly to the way you do, but it is a wholly impractical way to be. By being bitter about the way humanity is, you will only make yourself unhappier. If you arrange your priorities so that you find a balance between what you think is morally worthwhile and what is likely to achieve results, you'll be on a rewarding path. This is a good reason for not letting animal cruelty and rights consume your thoughts.

Well seeing as it was the whales and dolphins who dropped the nuke on Hiroshima, you can at least understand why they're so angry at them.

Jokes aside, I'm from the pro whaling camp. If a nation can find a way to use animals to its benefit, all the more power to them, as long as there is no excessive harm being caused to the animal.

I don't see why the whales are given a special status. I'm guessing it's because 'save the chickens' doesn't have such a sexy greenpeace feel to it. It seems to be impossible to not contradict yourself if you eat animals or benefit from them in any way.

As for vegans, heck I admire you thinking about issues. But seriously, if you refuse medical treatment to one of your kids because it was developed by animal testing, then you can be proud of not compromising your principles. Wear your anti-whaling shirts with pride, but you're completely insane, to put it humanely

thecite Wrote:Mezbup, if only the human race disappeared, the Earth's problems would be solved.

Thank you for speaking on behalf of the Earth. However, the Earth has told me that the human race is its greatest experiment thus far and likely the best candidate to be able to exist when the Earth is consumed by the Sun in 5 billion years (though humans are more likely to create the next superior candidate in the form of robotics, cybernetics and biological engineering). It would be most pleased if you stopped the genocidal hopes as it does not feel the same.

Personally, if we're not trying to get interstellar, we're wasting precious time.

Blahah Wrote:Also, I used to eat meat, and made the choice to stop, so I think you're wrong Tobberoth about vegetarians and vegans really wanting to eat meat.

It just takes one look at a grocery store to know that vegetarians want to eat meat. Almost all packaged vegetarian products are made in imitation of meat, meat-based dishes, or dairy products.

I'm supposing that a vegan would find imitation meat equally detestable as real meat, but I've never thought to ask one.

I saw this at Japan Probe: Japanese Sea Shepherd “Fan Club” Enjoys Whale Meat Feast

Jarvik7 Wrote:It just takes one look at a grocery store to know that vegetarians want to eat meat. Almost all packaged vegetarian products are made in imitation of meat, meat-based dishes, or dairy products.

I also found the idea of products such as veggie wieners puzzling. I figured that some vegetarians might buy them for reasons as varied as:
- their young kids want to be able to participate in a hotdog birthday party just like all the other kids
- they want to continue to enjoy their favourite recipes and some meat substitutes allow them to keep the same texture or appearance.
- they are vegetarian for health or environmental reasons moreso than animal rights
- breakfast cereal just isn't the same without milk, so why not substitute soy milk
- family members are not all vegetarians so this is a happy compromise
... etc.

I think it's wrong, though, to conclude that that all vegetarians (or even most) consume these packaged products. It's also pretty silly to conclude that the existence of such products means vegetarians want to eat meat. (But maybe you were joking and I missed it.)

Blahah Wrote:Also, I used to eat meat, and made the choice to stop, so I think you're wrong Tobberoth about vegetarians and vegans really wanting to eat meat.

I know tons of people who chose to stop eating meat, did so for a while (several years) then tried meat and IMMEDIATELY stopped being vegetarians. It's first after a long time going back that you realize just what you stopped eating and can really appreciate just how good it is.

Did each of those "tons of people" tell you that the exact reason they started eating meat again was because it is delicious? Maybe there were other reasons:
- inconvenient to follow a veggie diet where they live, dining out, etc.
- family members aren't vegetarian, so meal planning was tricky
- previous health concerns (cholesterol) were no longer an issue
- their views on sustainability had modified
- they had doubts about whether their cooking was nutritionally complete
- they tend to try out fad diets and not stick to them
- they discovered a specific iron deficiency and meat-based iron was recommended

Some who experiment with a non-meat diet miss having meat. I'm skeptical of claims that all vegetarians want to eat meat because it's so delicious. Or that once they succumb to temptation, they instantly become avid carnivores. :-) There are so many reasons for giving up meat, so there are probably many reasons for resuming. And some might continue with a very reduced meat diet.

I guess I'm not really sure exactly what your claim is.
[edit: I seem to be resorting to lists now to counter categorical statements...:-)]

Thora Wrote:Did each of those "tons of people" tell you that the exact reason they started eating meat again was because it is delicious? Maybe there were other reasons:
- inconvenient to follow a veggie diet where they live, dining out, etc.
- family members aren't vegetarian, so meal planning was tricky
- previous health concerns (cholesterol) were no longer an issue
- their views on sustainability had modified
- they had doubts about whether their cooking was nutritionally complete
- they tend to try out fad diets and not stick to them
- they discovered a specific iron deficiency and meat-based iron was recommended

Some who experiment with a non-meat diet miss having meat. I'm skeptical of claims that all vegetarians want to eat meat because it's so delicious. Or that once they succumb to temptation, they instantly become avid carnivores. :-) There are so many reasons for giving up meat, so there are probably many reasons for resuming. And some might continue with a very reduced meat diet.

I guess I'm not really sure exactly what your claim is.
[edit: I seem to be resorting to lists now to counter categorical statements...:-)]

I didn't say "all vegetarians", so your skepticism is misplaced in this case. I also don't see how it matters that there are many reasons to go back to meat when it happens when just as they try meat for the first time in years. If it would be another reason, it could have happened before or after, but it didn't. (That, and they said it was because of the taste. I guess they COULD be lying though.)

My claim is simply that many people who think they are hardcore vegetarians are fooling themselves and they have simply forgotten why it's awesome to eat meat. I can't prove that, and I'm not going to try. Just defending my claim with my personal anecdotes.

Do my personal anecdotes count for anything? Maybe not, but I find it both humorous and interesting that at least 3 vegetarians I know personally stopped after tasting meat. This, even though two of them were quite militant about it.

I went vegetarian for a while, and found meat tasted horrible. I had to retrain myself to enjoy the taste of flesh. Likewise with other lapsed vegetarians I knew. At least 3+1 of them, so I guess I'm right and Tobbs is wrong.

yeah, that kind of militancy can be a real drag. I can appreciate smugly enjoying a bit of "I told you so" in those situations.

[edit: I discovered Nest0r had already written the same thing in post above, so I deleted this paragraph. lol]

From people I've spoken to and tv/ internet surveys I've looked at, it seems that most young Japanese have never even eaten whale and don't care for hunting them. I tried it once and it was disgusting so I don't blame them. It's the older "you can't tell me what to do" crowd that are keeping it up. I guess it'll phase out naturally in time as they all eventually die. (edit: the people that is, not the whales :p)