http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-16064002

Quote:Japan has used funds from its tsunami recovery budget to subsidise its controversial annual whaling programme, animal rights activists say.

Greenpeace says 2.3bn yen ($30m; £19m) is being used to fund extra security measures for the whaling fleet.

Japanese officials argued when they applied for extra funding that whaling helped coastal communities.

Thoughts? Pretty disgusting in my opinion; sadly will make people think twice about donating to charity again.

The thing I find most interesting that the justification is that "towns and villages affected relied on whaling for their livelihoods.". I though Japanese whaling was purely scientific and not a commercial venture - so why would businesses or the local economy be affected?!

People involved in scientific work (be they scientists or support workers) do make money from their work and participate in the economy.

Not that I buy the science excuse. I think Japan should just excuse itself from the agreement and hunt openly (without subsidy), since there is nothing wrong with sustainable hunts of non-threatened species (here we go).

Also, you can't trust anything Greenpeace says, they are just out for publicity leading to donations. You'll notice that the only source in that article are activists who are usually pretty uninformed even if they are on the right side of an argument (confirmation bias).

Just a somewhat related question that has been on my mind.

Anti-whaling oppose whaling for various reasons. One of the main reasons is that whales (or certain types of whales) are in short supply/endangered.

At the moment, we have massive farms with a seemingly endless supply of unendangered cows, pigs, and chickens, born, raised, and slaughtered everyday.

Suppose that we have a similar farm in the sea, except that through the use of science or something else, we are able to have an abundant supply of whales with which we can slaughter with minimal pain and suffering (another anti-whaling argument).

In this scenario, would anti-whaling advocates still oppose whaling?

The majority would still oppose whaling because the majority of these activists (and most other activists) are a bunch of clueless bandwagon jumpers.

That's how some people make their money. It helps Japan's economy recover in the process, so I see no problem with it. Besides, whales aren't people.

Opposition to whaling/dolphin hunting is entirely emotional, with environmentalism occasionally tacked on as an excuse. It's the same reason there is a big uproar in the US right now over making it legal again for horses to be butchered for meat or people get hugely upset over seal hunting in Canada (there is actually an overpopulation of seals and they are leading to certain fish species being threatened).

Jarvik7 Wrote:Not that I buy the science excuse. I think Japan should just excuse itself from the agreement and hunt openly (without subsidy), since there is nothing wrong with sustained hunts of non-threatened species (here we go).

Whales were threatened with extinction, and the only reason they're flourishing again is because of the 1986 commercial whaling ban. If Japan "excused" themselves then all other countries would, and the same problem would occur.

Allowing whaling with strict quotas is pretty much the perfect compromise.

Jarvik7 Wrote:Also, you can't trust anything Greenpeace says, they are just out for publicity leading to donations. You'll notice that the only source in that article are activists who are usually pretty uninformed even if they are on the right side of an argument (confirmation bias).

Many other news agencies are running the story, with quotes from the Japanese Fisheries Agency. So seems legit, though can't find original source.

There is more than one type of whale.

Just because a certain species of Amazon rainforest parrot is near extinction doesn't mean I should stop eating chicken.

Even if they were hunting whales which almost went extinct previously, old style whaling was much larger scale and not done in a sustainable manner.

I did not mean to suggest a free-for-all orgy of machine-gunning all the whales we can find just for fun. Japan can leave the no-whaling agreement but still have strict quotas and only issue a certain number of licenses.

-Disclaimer-
I am not pro-whaling and I didn't like whale the one time I tried it. I'm just tired of hearing about the (non-)issue. I am against subsidization though, since it's propping up a failing industry with my tax yennies. If anything the money should go to establishing new industry in the area, or letting the town fail and helping residents relocate to areas with jobs.

So many things to argue, but what's the point? We've had all these discussions before.

As for the funding of whaling with tsunami fund money, pretty scum, but it doesn't surprise me. The government seems willing to do just about anything to keep whaling in the Antarctic alive.

Jarvik7 Wrote:Just because a certain species of Amazon rainforest parrot is near extinction doesn't mean I should stop eating chicken.

I never understood why anyone would care about the extinction of rare species that have no influence on the environment at all. Everytime someone tells me that a 100 different species of trees go extinct in the rainforest everyday, I only think "Shouldn't we be worrying about the total number of trees?".

aphasiac Wrote:The thing I find most interesting that the justification is that "towns and villages affected relied on whaling for their livelihoods.". I though Japanese whaling was purely scientific and not a commercial venture - so why would businesses or the local economy be affected?!

Yeah, this is the important point... those communities officially shouldn't have any commercial income from whaling, so it's hard to see how the Japanese Government can admit this without admitting that they are acting against the law.

Regarding quotas, as long as you remember that even non endangered whales number only in the 100,000s, that the average whale takes around 10 years to reach maturity, that the gestation period is long, and they stay with their mothers for a long time, and that they only have one baby at once, you'll see why people are worried.

It may be possible to do it by quotas, but these have to be strictly adhered to, or it's useless. And when the demand outstrips those quotas, it's very difficult to enforce when those businesses will lose money by not just catching more. Basically, it's going to end up in a loss making business by sticking to those quotas.

@Apirx: No, the type of trees matter a lot. Each tree is part of it's own ecosystem, so if you wipe out a species, you run the risk of wiping out various species of animals too. For instance, the replacement of rainforest trees with palm oil plantations may not change the total amount of trees, but it ends up wiping out orangutans and other species that were dependant on those rainforest trees.

IceCream Wrote:businesses will lose money

The one thing I hate about anti-whalers are those who use the "whaling industry is not sustainable and will hurt businesses financially" argument.

As if they cared about the livelihood of the whaling industry employees/businesses!

Plus, the downfall of the whaling industry is in the anti-whalers' best interests anyway, if they used their brains.

The other argument I hate is the "eating whale/dolphin meat is not healthy" for Japanese people, as if they cared about any Japanese person. Maybe Japanese people should keep eating more whales/dolphins and let the results take care of itself (Japanese people die, then internally demand the banning of the sale of whales). I'm assuming the "unsafe whale meat" argument is true by the way.

Disclaimer: I'm anti-whaling.

it doesn't matter whether they care or not, as long as it's true.

aphasiac Wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-16064002

Quote:Japan has used funds from its tsunami recovery budget to subsidise its controversial annual whaling programme, animal rights activists say.

Greenpeace says 2.3bn yen ($30m; £19m) is being used to fund extra security measures for the whaling fleet.

Japanese officials argued when they applied for extra funding that whaling helped coastal communities.

Thoughts? Pretty disgusting in my opinion; sadly will make people think twice about donating to charity again.

The thing I find most interesting that the justification is that "towns and villages affected relied on whaling for their livelihoods.". I though Japanese whaling was purely scientific and not a commercial venture - so why would businesses or the local economy be affected?!

One reason I that I don't like Green Peace. Yes, it would be possible that those who got effected by the tsunami were communities that engaged in whaling.

The casual reader would assume that the some of the money is being diverted to help those who are not entitled to get any assistance. Also, that mechanism allow the fund to be used for whaling programme. Which is false.

The truth is fishing and whaling are already part of those communities economy, even though Japan had abandoned this years whaling early.

It is the coastal communities that maintain the shipping vessels need for fishing.

Japan is one of the few nations that still engages in whaling, even though they use scientific research as the justification for killing whales.

Greenpeace logic (not argument) would make you assume that the tsumani hit Tokyo when you first heard about the tsumani in Japan.

IceCream Wrote:Yeah, this is the important point... those communities officially shouldn't have any commercial income from whaling, so it's hard to see how the Japanese Government can admit this without admitting that they are acting against the law.

Unfortunately, there is no prior knowledge of that. This nothing more than a false controversy.

Omoishinji Wrote:

IceCream Wrote:Yeah, this is the important point... those communities officially shouldn't have any commercial income from whaling, so it's hard to see how the Japanese Government can admit this without admitting that they are acting against the law.

Unfortunately, there is no prior knowledge of that. This nothing more than a false controversy.

...? i'm really not sure what you mean here.

IceCream Wrote:@Apirx: No, the type of trees matter a lot. Each tree is part of it's own ecosystem, so if you wipe out a species, you run the risk of wiping out various species of animals too. For instance, the replacement of rainforest trees with palm oil plantations may not change the total amount of trees, but it ends up wiping out orangutans and other species that were dependant on those rainforest trees.

So they can't live in those trees, but there are probably a million other types of trees where they can live. I was trying to say I don't see the point in saving a species just for the sake of saving a species.

no, each tree is part of a unique ecosystem, and when you wipe out one species, it's going to affect that ecosystem. Various animals don't adapt quickly enough to survive in those circumstances.

But anyway, if you don't see the point in saving a species of tree, perhaps you don't see the point in saving a species of animal / insect either.

The point isn't that people want to save them "for the sake of it", it's about accepting responsibility as a human being for the effects we're having on the environment, and trying to live in a way that doesn't damage the planet irreparably.

Honestly, we should just wipe out humans. I really don't see the point of saving our species, not even for the sake of it. (i'm conscientiously objecting by never having children)

IceCream Wrote:Honestly, we should just wipe out humans. I really don't see the point of saving our species, not even for the sake of it. (i'm conscientiously objecting by never having children)

Please, humanity is the greatest accomplishment the earth has yet produced (that we know of). Many species have become extinct, how many have set foot on the moon? Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. We have a lot of room for improvement, sure, but considering us a lost cause? That's far too negative an outlook on life for me.

in the grand scheme of things, setting foot on the moon is not so great and important though. It's interesting, but only to us. Obviously, there are far too many of us. If we could keep our population at a reasonable level so we don't ruin the entire planet, it would be a much greater acheivement, but it's something that every other species manages to begin with, so... they're pretty much better than us.

I'm not having children either, albeit for different reasons. : )

When I was talking about species, I meant all kind of species, not only trees.

We are damaging the planet (or at least the part of the planet we dubbed the "environment") in so many ways, I think we should worry about saving insects, whales and monkeys once we stop polluting the air we breath (if we ever do).



edit:

I think we have proven that we are superior than all animals from an evolutionary viewpoint by having to try not to extinct them.

lol, yes, for now, but it's not so evolutionarily clever in the long run...!!! As it is, it's looking like people are just as much of an evolutionary blip as any of those other extinct things, only far more destructive.

i think we should worry about all of those things!! If we worry about some of them afterwards, it'll already be too late.

(i think i've been reading too many eco-deathsustainabilitydoomandgloom stuff today...)

I recently saw a chart about donations in my country. It showed in percent for which causes people donate money.

I don't remember the actual numbers, but it was something like this:

40% children (orphans, disabled, etc)
35% animals
20% starving people (e.g. in Africa)
5% else

I had to laugh when I saw this. Yeah! Save the puppies! Screw people in Africa!

Again, I may remember the numbers wrong, but I always thought the environmentalists would rather save a puppy (or whale for that matter) than a human being.

IceCream Wrote:Honestly, we should just wipe out humans. I really don't see the point of saving our species, not even for the sake of it. (i'm conscientiously objecting by never having children)

I don't think we should actually make a decision and implement the wiping out of humans. I prefer the poetic justice route: The human race as a whole wipes itself out naturally by the unsustainable combined individual self-interest.

My only issue is that the human race does not have the decency to wipe itself without wiping out everything else (trees, ocean, animals etc).

zigmonty Wrote:Please, humanity is the greatest accomplishment the earth has yet produced (that we know of). Many species have become extinct, how many have set foot on the moon? Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. We have a lot of room for improvement, sure, but considering us a lost cause? That's far too negative an outlook on life for me.

I would say that humanity is simultaneously the greatest and worst accomplishment. As a whole, humans have the capability to do lots of good but at the same time, lots of bad.

However, if the worst case scenario happens (say, the complete destruction of Earth due to war making it uninhabitable), then it's probably irreversible.

I can only hope humans aren't stupid and short-sighted enough for that to happen.

IceCream Wrote:in the grand scheme of things, setting foot on the moon is not so great and important though. It's interesting, but only to us. Obviously, there are far too many of us. If we could keep our population at a reasonable level so we don't ruin the entire planet, it would be a much greater acheivement, but it's something that every other species manages to begin with, so... they're pretty much better than us.

I commend your educated decision to refrain from procreating. If all countries had the system and the opportunity for the citizens to gain access to education, I'm sure many of them would refrain from procreating out of their own free will, instead of being coerced into doing so. In fact, I believe education rates has a strong/very strong negative correlation to birth rates.

There's a lot to criticise China for, but they should be commended for their 1 child policy (flaws of the policy aside). Imagine asking self-indulgent Americans to do something useful for once and have 1 child only.

A related note worth mentioning is the existence of orphaned children (children without parents). How can people be so selfish as to create more children when there are existing children out there without mothers and fathers? Okay, I know it's because of how some people can only be attached to someone of their own blood. I'm just saying this view is outdated and selfish.

apirx Wrote:I recently saw a chart about donations in my country. It showed in percent for which causes people donate money.

I don't remember the actual numbers, but it was something like this:

40% children (orphans, disabled, etc)
35% animals
20% starving people (e.g. in Africa)
5% else

I had to laugh when I saw this. Yeah! Save the puppies! Screw people in Africa!

Again, I may remember the numbers wrong, but I always thought the environmentalists would rather save a puppy (or whale for that matter) than a human being.

I'm not too surprised. Everyone likes children ("will somebody please think of the children") and most people like animals (preferably cute and cuddly ones).

Most people don't care about adults, starving or not. Even less, if they're a different skin colour, or if the same skin colour, then ones from a different country.

Actually now would be a good time for this link: http://www.cracked.com/article_14990_wha...phere.html

It makes sense honestly. Japan's 'scientific' whaling programme suffered from the quake so obviously they are going to use some resources to fund it's recovery just like any other field.

Obviously it's all smoke and mirrors to get around the prohibitions. I didn't read the thread too carefully but I hope no one here actually defended this activity.