Hacker News Reader

Comment by RcouF1uZ4gsC | Hacker News Reader

Does this mean that Japan will now stop their “research” whale hunts?

If it doesn’t, I am worried about how much this commitment is real.

Some Japanese people I speak with who work in the marine industry believe that whales are a major threat to fish stocks and are gobbling up all the fish so that not enough is left for humans.

I don't believe that's true and make an effort to persuade them otherwise. But at the very least I'm sure that many Japanese people (based on what they have been taught) earnestly do not see an incongruity between whaling and a desire to protect the oceans.

Why single out Japan? Canada, Greenland, Faroe Islands, and Norway all exceed it. Canada and Norway are signatories of this new commitment.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whaling#Whaling_catches_by_loc...

The only people who do whaling in Canada are the First Nations, and they do it in Canada's territorial waters:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whaling_in_Canada

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aboriginal_whaling

They generally eat it, make art, and perhaps use parts for traditional clothing.

Japan on the other hand (a) has no Indigenous peoples following their traditional ways, (b) often violates the waters of other countries, and (c) has no basis for scientific inquiry (as ruled by the ICJ):

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whaling_in_Japan

You don't see Intuit fisherman in the Southern Ocean off the coast Antarctic, but you do see Japanese fishing boats.

> The only people who do whaling in Canada are the First Nations

That makes things worse. You're defending something like a couple of million people for killing 4510 whales, while vilifying a country of 125 million for killing 2080 whales.

So, (a) it makes no difference to the intelligent creatures whether they are killed in the name of "science" or "traditional ways" (b) whales have extensive ranges, so going where they live vs. waiting for them to come to you are both just as bad, and (c) there is enough scientific reason for everyone to stop killing whales.

Strange fact: the Inuit are not classified as First Nations for some reason. Instead, they fall under the general rubric of "aboriginal". On the other hand, the Metis are regarded as First Nations, which makes little sense.

I think it would depend on who you asked for the Inuit. In places where they were both aboriginal and first nations those terms are mostly different articulations of the same thing, with personal preference of the person you are describing ultimately being the right choice.

This is a pretty good article on it through the lens of Australia.

https://www.commonground.org.au/learn/aboriginal-or-indigeno...

It's actually codified in the Canadian Constitution. See paragraph 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inuit

(a) Wat. The Japanese people are just as indigenous as Canada's. Just because a people did not get conquered does not make them less indigenous. Unless your making a comment about the jomon...

How about:

> Japan on the other hand (a) has no Indigenous peoples && following their traditional ways

What is done now in Japan, regardless of whether we want to apply 'indigenous' to the current people or not, can hardly be called "traditional":

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whaling_in_Japan#Modernization

Or did the ancestors of Japan's current whalers used to travel down to Antartica / the Southern Ocean in previous centuries? If the Japanese want to fish in their territorial / EEZ waters, then that is something that could be more acceptable. But that is not what they're doing AFAICT.

If the Intuit travelled thousands of miles and used vessels with commercial-grade refrigeration, then I think plenty of people would object to their actions as well.

I thought the Ainu people were the original inhabitants of much of Japan? Or am I mistaken?

The Ainu are believed to be descendants of the Joumon and related peoples, whose presence in the Japanese archipelago indeed precedes the introduction of the Yayoi people who are thought to be the main stock of the currently dominant ethnic group of Japan.

The thing is, though, the latter arrivals were some 2~3000 years ago. For comparison, the Yayoi incursion not only predates not only the entire traceable history of the Inuit people, but also that of the (unrelated) Dorset culture that they're believed to have driven out. I'm not sure there's a principled metric by which Canada's whalers are "Indigenous peoples following their traditional ways" and nearly all Japanese people aren't.

I agree with you. The whole "we were here first" argument tends to fall apart at a certain time horizon, almost like there's a statute of limitations on what constitutes "indigenous".

Because the aboriginal people don't take more than they need and they use the entire animal. The Japanese are doing it for the meat ($$$) exclusively.

Let's give the people that haven't destroyed their own environment a bit of leeway. IMO, a marker of intelligence isn't building rockets, it's not shitting where you eat.

What is the problem with whaling if done in a sustainable way?

Well, what's the problem with eating, say, gorillas, if done in a sustainable way?

You don't need to be a card-carrying PETA vegan to find it quite off-putting to eat self-aware social animals with some of the world's largest brains.

> Well, what's the problem with eating, say, gorillas, if done in a sustainable way?

There's no problem with eating these animals if it's a cultural norm. Many indigenous peoples in Africa, eg the Bari of Sudan, eat monkeys and other apes. Whales have been hunted in Canada by aboriginal peoples since time immemorial. It doesn't matter how smart or social you are. Someone or something unsympathetic is going to eat you, and it just might be humans who don't share your (actually our) ethical ideas.

This defense of anthropophagy (or, why stop there and not include also human sacrifices) in the name of cultural norm, was intended to be sarcastic, wasn't it?

Maybe humans can be better.

I don't draw the line in the consciousness-of-the-animal dimension. I draw the line on the life conditions of the animal dimension.

There's nothing wrong with killing gorillas and eating them as long as we don't imprison them for life in overcrowded farms like we do with chicken, pigs and cows.

Killing animals while they're free in their natural habitat is fine, or at least it's 1000x better than what we currently do.

I like the dish "Whale bacon". It's pretty un-PC, but would eat again.

I wish christians not to regulate all over the world in their way.

I'll happily bite that bullet: in principle there is nothing wrong with eating gorillas. Or whales, or dolphins, or whatever other non-human species we're projecting onto today.

Is it sustainable or "sustainable?" (As in, not really sustainable, but spun so people think it's sustainable?)

At current catch rates it's very sustainable.

Citations?

No, cetaceans.

lmaooo

That’s genuinely funny but HN frowns on posts that are only jokes or puns, FYI.

Even IWC says on their website that current catch rates are not a threat to whale populations. Fisheries (bycatch/entanglement) are a much bigger threat.

There's no real purpose to whale and it seems unethical. Why not eat humans?

Whaling is much more humane than industrialized animal farming.

Ok but non-industrialized animal farming is much more humane than whaling or industrialized animal farming. Reducing meat consumption is more humane than all of the above.

Not sure if non-industrialized farming is more humane than whaling, but I agree on your last point. :-)

Japan has resumed commercial whaling since July 2019

https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/02/asia/japan-first-whale-catch-...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com