Japan to withdraw from the International Whaling Commission • Hacker News Board

Re: Japan to withdraw from the International Whaling Commission

#221

Post by ajmurmann » Thu, Dec 27, 2018, 8:07 PM UTC

coredog64 wrote: post #177

adrianN wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We could just pay fishermen to not fish, just like we pay farmers for fallow land.

If you really wanted to accomplish this, have a conservation organization buy fishing days for the EEZ that hosts the species you want to protect. If you wanted to fix this for all time, the US should buy the entire island nation of Kiribati, resettle the current occupants someplace where they can continue with a similar culture (maybe somewhere on the Texas coast), and then turn the Kiribati EEZ into an MOA for the…

I love the idea of buying fishing days. Iceland sells fishing quotas, I wonder if one could buy them with the intention of not using them.

I've always thought the fundamental problem here is that I cannot pay to not have a fish caught. Maybe there are in fact ways around this?

Re: Japan to withdraw from the International Whaling Commission

#222

Post by maxxxxx » Thu, Dec 27, 2018, 8:09 PM UTC

LeifCarrotson wrote: post #132

maxxxxx wrote: post #38

I don't even eat meat but I find it difficult to be angry about this when at the same time at home we have millions (billions?) of farm animals live in absolutely terrible conditions. Reminds me a little of the outrage in CA about horse meat. There are plenty of people who think eating horse meat is morally wrong while at the same time they eat some salad with bacon on top. Why is a horse better than a pig? Certainly…

I don't think the most effective argument against whaling comes from concerns about their suffering. Same with horse meat. That would be persuasive to some vegans and vegetarians, but they represent a small subset of the population. A much larger group will respond well to concerns about their extinction. I want my son, and someday my son's kids (if he has any) and their kids to be able to go whale watching. I don't…

"Do you think it would be meritorious to advocate for the preservation, cultivation, and careful stewardship of bananas? "

It would be less meritorious than reducing the suffering of animals.

"I don't want them to go to school and learn about extinct species that my generation wantonly destroyed."

They will learn about that anyway, whales or not. We are destroying habitat of a lot of animals.

Re: Japan to withdraw from the International Whaling Commission

#223

Post by lb1lf » Thu, Dec 27, 2018, 8:22 PM UTC

AareyBaba wrote: post #216

lb1lf wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Extinction is a bit too strong of a word here - the combined minke whale population (AFAIK, minkes in the northern and southern hemisphere are considered separate species) is numbered in the hundreds of thousands; Japan kills a few hundred a year, last year Norway caught 342. Full disclosure - Norwegian, living in an area where whaling has been performed for hundreds of years, currently have about 12-15 pounds of wha…

What is the texture and taste like (since whales are mammals) ? Does it have fat marbling like beef/pork ?

That depends on where it is cut from, but overall whale meat is very dark - almost black - and pretty lean, marbling being rare.

If you don’t overcook it, it is extremely tender, but quickly -very quickly- turns rubber-y if it spends too long in the frying pan. You can eat it raw - with a spoon, almost.

Taste is slightly liver-y, and if the meat is old it can take on a cod liver oil-like taste which is rather unpleasant.

I mostly eat it like beef (meat room-tempered, nutmeg-browned butter in the frying pan, meat in pan thirty seconds either side to get a nice surface, then pull aside to rest for a few minutes prior to eating) or as a stew - onions, black pepper, whatever mushrooms I can find, whale meat diced, fry for a short while, add copious amounts of heavy cream, simmer until potatoes are done, yumyum.

Re: Japan to withdraw from the International Whaling Commission

#224

Post by danw1979 » Thu, Dec 27, 2018, 8:34 PM UTC

hjek wrote: post #157

coldtea wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, just not real or tasty ones.

I'm cooking and eating burgers often, and they smell and taste quite real (as opposed to imaginary burgers made out of air). Have you yourself tried a non-flesh burger, and did you genuinely find it bad? Was it from a shop or a cafe or was it homemade? Or do you have a dogmatic belief that there has to be real suffering and murder for a burger to be real ?

I absolutely love this one particular brand (Linda McCartney) of mozzarella-riddled vegetarian burger they sell in the UK. I'm a lifelong meat eater, past redemption really, but my wife is vegetarian and introduced me to them.

I would rather eat these textured soya protein burgers than even the best beef burger I've ever had. They are that good.

Also, upvoted because a difference of opinion isn't what down voting is for, surely ?

Re: Japan to withdraw from the International Whaling Commission

#225

Post by elygre » Thu, Dec 27, 2018, 8:37 PM UTC

bootlooped wrote: post #215

sc4les wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So it’s only immoral if the number of the animals is really low? Seems like an arbitrary trait to determine whether animals deserve to live or not

All other things being equal, killing an animal that is in danger of extinction is worse than killing one which is plentiful.

Agree. But generally irrelevant here, since the minke is not in danger of extinction.

Re: Japan to withdraw from the International Whaling Commission

#226

Post by d0100 » Thu, Dec 27, 2018, 8:37 PM UTC

goodrubyist wrote: post #111

d0100 wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Maybe a little extreme but by the same logic we could breed humans for slavery and say that it's OK because they got bred for it. The day an animal can articulate that, I'll agree with you. Until then such comparison bears no meaning.

That's wrong. What matters is the capacity to suffer. There are humans who do not have the mental capacity to articulate such a thing either. I'd highly recommend as it deals with such arguments in greater length. http://lockeanliberal.com/2014/11/02/what-a-conservative-col...

Suffering wasn't brought up. Just the comparison of being bred for food vs slavery.

Re: Japan to withdraw from the International Whaling Commission

#227

Post by lprubin » Thu, Dec 27, 2018, 8:37 PM UTC

beat wrote: post #195

lprubin wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe the important distinction is not whether or not pigs and cows are sentient/language capable. Instead the real question is can they suffer. And if they can is it acceptable to cause that suffering simply for entertainment value? Ask yourself if dog fighting is acceptable. That is clearly animal suffering for purely entertainment purposes. If you live in a situation where you can survive and thrive without ea…

I've never understood this part of the vegetarian argument. Cows and pigs wouldn't exist if we didn't eat them. Is it better that they not exist at all, than that they should suffer briefly?

I say yes. Can we breed humans as slaves and say “would it be better that they didn’t exist than live a horrible existence?” to justify breeding them? Because that is the exact logic slaveowners used.

Same with dogfighting. If we breed dogs for dogfighting that wouldn’t otherwise exist, does that make dogfighting acceptable?

Re: Japan to withdraw from the International Whaling Commission

#228

Post by d0100 » Thu, Dec 27, 2018, 8:41 PM UTC

option_greek wrote: post #122

d0100 wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Maybe a little extreme but by the same logic we could breed humans for slavery and say that it's OK because they got bred for it. The day an animal can articulate that, I'll agree with you. Until then such comparison bears no meaning.

We also don't make everyone who can't speak our language suffer.

Historically, we do. However, we are able to communicate even if we don't know a specific language.

Re: Japan to withdraw from the International Whaling Commission

#229

Post by kenneth » Thu, Dec 27, 2018, 8:43 PM UTC

gfodor wrote: post #194

kenneth wrote: post #94

Denouncing the consumption of meat from certain species of animals (like whales or dogs or foir gras) while happily eating burgers and chickens and tuna is utter hypocrisy. We need to work with Japan and other whaling countries to set sustainable quotas. But the condescending moral judgements need to end. There's nothing inherently different about eating a whale and a hundred chicken. Personally I try very hard not t…

Is it hypocritical to know sugar is bad for you and eat candy sometimes? If so, does it mean you should just not try to avoid candy and eat as much as you please, since otherwise you'd be a hypocrite? I think it's much better to have a reasoned through moral viewpoint, and accept that you will try and often fail to live up to that standard. Don't judge others, but judge yourself. We live in a culture which eats meat,…

I don't think you're a hypocrite. I think your stance is actually great — you have your own values and you try to do what you can to change your lifestyle to match those values. That's commendable.

If instead you had come out and said that people who eat dog/whale/horse are immoral, whilst you still eat, say, chicken — then you'd be a hypocrite. If you had said that whilst being vegan — you'd be annoying for trying to force your ideals onto others, but at least not a hypocrite. (But, just to be clear, given you didn't make any judgements about others — I think you're an example of what we should strive for.)

--

Also — important distinction. Sustainability is more about the quantity of meat you eat than the animal it comes from. You'd arguably have a much more positive effect by eating meat only once a week, be it dog/whale/dolphin/horse/anything, vs. eating only beef and chicken every other day.

Re: Japan to withdraw from the International Whaling Commission

#230

Post by hjek » Thu, Dec 27, 2018, 8:46 PM UTC

zucan wrote: post #220

hjek wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm cooking and eating burgers often, and they smell and taste quite real (as opposed to imaginary burgers made out of air). Have you yourself tried a non-flesh burger, and did you genuinely find it bad? Was it from a shop or a cafe or was it homemade? Or do you have a dogmatic belief that there has to be real suffering and murder for a burger to be real ?

It appears to be an issue with expectations for some people (including me). "Burger" is associated with a certain flavor, texture and appearance, so when I eat a veggie burger my subconsciousness is disappointed because it's too different. The veggie burger becomes a worse version of a regular burger rather than an independent dish. This is the main reason why I dislike so many "vegetarian alternative" dishes on our…

> The veggie burger becomes a worse version of a regular burger rather than an independent dish.

I can understand why some people can be put off by the taste. Having previously eaten non-human animals, I can say that I prefer the taste of veggie burgers and sausages, although most vegan cheese tastes absolutely disgusting (especially the ones pretending to be parmesan). But I really, really wish that more of us would be willing to accept a reduction in the tastiness of certain dishes to help prevent antibiotics resistance, non-human animal suffering, climate breakdown, dead zones and starvation.

And other times I really can't tell the difference, and to be honest it kind of scares me. Some brands go so far as to make the minced "meat" look red and bloody[0]. Then, I have to take someone's word that this thing that really looks like a shrimp and is all crunchy really isn't a shrimp[1]. It's like a whole new art form.

[0]: https://www.naturli-foods.dk/produkter/aertefars/

[1]: http://vegetarian-plus.com/product/vegan-shrimp/ (Note: The ones I tried looked more convincing)