Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Japan to withdraw from the International Whaling Commission

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 247 posts

Re: Japan to withdraw from the International Whaling Commission

#231

Post by spraak »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #181
spraak wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All amino acids originate from non-animals (plants, microbes). Where do you think other animals get their essential amino acids? They eat plants or eat an animal that ate plants. All plant proteins have all of the essential amino acids. The only truly “incomplete” protein is gelatin, which is missing the amino acid tryptophan, so the only protein source you couldn’t live on is Jello.

Basically all of your comment is false. Humans can synthesize many amino acids. That is the defining difference between non-essential vs. essential amino acids. And there are lots of plant sources that are missing or insufficient in essential amino acids. Beans, for example, are lacking in methionine, which is why corn and beans are eaten together in some traditional diets.

Sorry, all essential* amino acids come from plants or microbes. Beans, e.g. pinto, do have methionine, but corn has even less, so I don't see your point.

Besides, you probably don't want a lot of methionine in your diet (it's linked to feeding cancer) [1..7].

Further, you're recycling the tired myth that "protein comibing" is necessary. Our body maintains pools of free amino acids by dumping protein into the digestive tract, which are broken down and reassembled, i.e. it does the protein combining for us, it's not necessary to explicitly do it through meals if you're otherwise eating a varied diet that sufficient in calories.

[1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22171665 [2] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18789600 [3] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15955547 [4] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18252204 [5] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22342103 [6] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11603655 [7] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14585259

Re: Japan to withdraw from the International Whaling Commission

#232

Post by javagram »

newcrobuzon wrote: post #88
javagram wrote: post #8

According to the article “ Pro-whaling nations expected the moratorium to be temporary, until consensus could be reached on sustainable catch quotas.” If this fishing is truly sustainable and doesn’t threaten the whales with extinction there shouldn’t be a problem. Why should whales get protection that pigs, cows, and other animals don’t?

For the same reasons that mountain gorillas do?

According to one of the first DDG results, “Mountain gorillas are one of the most endangered animals in the world”.

Supposedly this isn’t the case for the species of whale being hunted and the fishing is actually sustainable, according to other information posted here and on Wikipedia stating there’s a population of 500,000 minke whales and they are on a “least concern” list.

Re: Japan to withdraw from the International Whaling Commission

#233

Post by coryfklein »

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…

I believe the concern with whale hunting is less related to the suffering of the whales and more related to biological diversity. Hunting has already driven many whale species to extinction with several others on that same path.

Whales are of particular concern because, once their population is reduced, it is very hard for them to reestablish a large and healthy population. I believe because they have such low offspring rates.

Re: Japan to withdraw from the International Whaling Commission

#234

Post by javagram »

siffland wrote: post #31
javagram wrote: post #8

According to the article “ Pro-whaling nations expected the moratorium to be temporary, until consensus could be reached on sustainable catch quotas.” If this fishing is truly sustainable and doesn’t threaten the whales with extinction there shouldn’t be a problem. Why should whales get protection that pigs, cows, and other animals don’t?

If you are comparing pigs and cows to whaling you are comparing apples and oranges. Pigs and cows and such are farm raised animals for the purpose of slaughter. If you compared it to hunting deer and moose and elephants and lions and whatnot that would be more of a comparison. Still the difference there is individuals are getting hunting licenses as opposed to an entire country. You can compare tuna fishing and crabb…

I actually mentioned pigs because they are supposedly quite intelligent and have even been human pets in some civilizations.

You’re right that this is a case of hunting wild animals vs farmed animals for the species I listed, but I don’t see farming animals as inherently more moral. Hunting is definitely problematic if it places a species in danger of extinction, but the article claims the minke whales aren’t anywhere close to endangered and my own internet searches seem to back this up.

Re: Japan to withdraw from the International Whaling Commission

#235

Post by coryfklein »

maxxxxx wrote: post #56
endangered wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think this is a fair comparison because we breed these animals for farming, so technically we could breed as many as we need to sustain our habits. On the other hand there is no way to breed whales. There is some finite number of them in the wild and we cannot actively endeavor to create more. Commercial farming of farm animals will not cause the extinction of farm animals; commercial farming of whales will c…

" I don't think this is a fair comparison because we breed these animals for farming, so technically we could breed as many as we need to sustain our habits." They still suffer greatly. 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. "commercial farming of whales will cause the extinction of whales. " Not if done with proper quotas. It'…

> Not if done with proper quotas.

And there lies the rub! People ignoring quotas are the whole reason this kind of fishing needs strong cooperative regulation.

> It's not different from any other type of fishing.

Actually, it is categorically different. You'd be hard pressed to hunt salmon to extinction even if you tried because they spawn hundreds of eggs per female each year. The same cannot be said for any species of whale.

Re: Japan to withdraw from the International Whaling Commission

#236

Post by toasterlovin »

bootlooped wrote: post #212
toasterlovin wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there's a pretty reasonable argument that 1) conditions for livestock are actually much better than those endured by animals in nature, and 2) living to eventually be slaughtered is better than never having lived at all.

There are a lot of documentaries (Earthlings, Dominion) or books (Eating Animals, Fast Food Nation) on animal agriculture that would give you a better counterpoint to #1 than I will in this comment. Or just Google image search "factory farm", "battery cage", "gestation crate". If #2 justified animal agriculture it could also be used to justify human slavery, provided you intentionally bred humans for that purpose.

Regarding factory farming vs. life in a state of nature: on average, each breeding pair of animals will produce just two offspring that live to maturity and reproduce. Which means that the vast majority of animals ever born will die of something other than old age. And mostly those deaths will come via predation, starvation, or by freezing to death (in northern climates). In other words, the scale of death and misery in nature is massive.

And regarding my second point somehow justifying human slavery: that's only true if your moral system somehow makes humans and animals out to be equivalent. But we don't even make different classes of humans morally equivalent to each other, so why would we make animals morally equivalent to humans?

Re: Japan to withdraw from the International Whaling Commission

#237

Post by toasterlovin »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #167
toasterlovin wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there's a pretty reasonable argument that 1) conditions for livestock are actually much better than those endured by animals in nature, and 2) living to eventually be slaughtered is better than never having lived at all.

While I think both of those points are very debatable (just search YouTube for factory farming videos if you really think livestock conditions are better), they still miss the point. After all, both of your points could just as easily apply to dogs, cats, horses, whales, chimpanzees and heck, even humans. My main argument is that there is really no morally consistent way to think that eating dogs, cats, horses or wha…

See my response here[0] on whether living in nature or on a factory farm is more more horrific. The gist is: each breeding pair of animals produces, on average, just two offspring who themselves live to reproduce. The implication is that the vast majority of animals ever born die of predation, starvation, or via exposure to the elements. Nature is a bloodbath.

[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18773106

Re: Japan to withdraw from the International Whaling Commission

#238

Post by petre »

siffland wrote: post #33
temeritatis wrote: post #6

People often defend these kind of acts with the rationale that it is a culture heritage. If so, shouldn't they be sailing the ocean with traditional wooden sailboats and relying only on wind and currents to take them where they should go?

will probably get down voted for this but cannibalism was part of some cultures.....just saying, things change.

Also Papuans ate their dead instead of burying or incinerating them and that's how they got prion diseases. Not all traditions are good.

Re: Japan to withdraw from the International Whaling Commission

#239

Post by hjek »

danw1979 wrote: post #224
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 ?

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…

> I absolutely love this one particular brand (Linda McCartney) of mozzarella-riddled vegetarian burger they sell in the UK.

Yea, and on top of that Linda McCartney products are cheap, free from plastic packaging and pretty much available everywhere.

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

I've also wondered about the semantics of the voting arrows (because I'm working on a HN-like[0]). In the guidelines[1] it says how voting/karma works, but not what a vote is supposed to mean. Within the (rarely used) polls[2] the meaning is a bit clearer. Lobsters[3] requires you to pick a reason for down-voting (and "I disagree" is not one of those), which makes its purpose a bit clearer.

[0]: https://gitlab.com/hjek/undebatable

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/newpoll

[3]: https://lobste.rs

Re: Japan to withdraw from the International Whaling Commission

#240

Post by bootlooped »

toasterlovin wrote: post #236
bootlooped wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are a lot of documentaries (Earthlings, Dominion) or books (Eating Animals, Fast Food Nation) on animal agriculture that would give you a better counterpoint to #1 than I will in this comment. Or just Google image search "factory farm", "battery cage", "gestation crate". If #2 justified animal agriculture it could also be used to justify human slavery, provided you intentionally bred humans for that purpose.

Regarding factory farming vs. life in a state of nature: on average, each breeding pair of animals will produce just two offspring that live to maturity and reproduce. Which means that the vast majority of animals ever born will die of something other than old age. And mostly those deaths will come via predation, starvation, or by freezing to death (in northern climates). In other words, the scale of death and misery…

A life of pain and suffering on a factory farm is worse than a natural life, where there is at least the possibility of joy and natural behavior. The only thing many factory-farmed animals ever touch is steel, concrete, and their own waste; they never see the sun nor feel the wind. Many are artificially inseminated, so they don't reproduce naturally. Many never see live plants, let alone eat them, so they don't feed naturally. Many live in cages so small they can't turn around or stand up, others so packed together that they go crazy and resort to cannibalism. To mitigate or prevent cannibalism, pigs and chickens are mutilated in various ways. From lack of exercise and intense weight gain many can't stand on their own for the later portions of their short lives. The scale and degree of cruelty that factory farming inflicts on animals is really incredible, and I think it says something horrible about humanity.
Post reply on HN