51–60 of 247 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, they're explicitly dropping the scientific study excuse, and using culture now. They're also only going to be whaling in their economic exclusion zone now, rather than going potentially thousands of miles.
Not exactly meaningful when talking about highly migratory species!
Well this is quite rational policy (tongue in cheek). As population of Japan is getting older and older it makes less and less sense to bother with longer term perspective on sustainability of the planet.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While I agree with the first part of your point, I've come to the opposite conclusion: slaughtering cows and pigs is morally indefensible. One aspect of this particular cognitive dissonance has always baffled me: you can, for example, see lots of pictures in reddit's "r/aww" subreddit of adorable pigs and cows, and in many cases the draw is the way these animals show behaviors analagous to humans, e.g. cuddling, or p…
> I think that in the future societies will look back at our consumption of meat, especially factory farming methods, and wonder why it took us so long to change our attitudes on this issue. How would future societies propose we feed ourselves if we don't eat meat?
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.
That cliché argument is used not only by the Japanese to defend whale hunting but to any kind of violence towards all non-human animals.
Things change. Things need to change.
What's a sustainable level of whaling? Whale beef is totally delicious, but I'm wondering if Norways catch is sustainable and I can continue to enjoy it.
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 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…
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's not different from any other type of fishing.
Again, I don't even eat meat, but we should be a little more rational.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While I agree with the first part of your point, I've come to the opposite conclusion: slaughtering cows and pigs is morally indefensible. One aspect of this particular cognitive dissonance has always baffled me: you can, for example, see lots of pictures in reddit's "r/aww" subreddit of adorable pigs and cows, and in many cases the draw is the way these animals show behaviors analagous to humans, e.g. cuddling, or p…
I have been thinking about the issue of "saving the planet", which is similar to "saving the endangered spices from extinctions". Ultimately I think humans are just selfish by nature and they only do things to ensure the continuation of humans as a spices. Everything else is sugar-coating it. So really, there is no morality to be discussed, it is just natural instinct. My unpopular thoughts on global warming: https:/…
Of course the reason we should fight global warming is that it will have huge deleterious effects on humans that are avoidable. Yes, I agree, "the planet" will continue with or without us, but most people would prefer the "with us" option.
Finally, you end with "All we are doing is making the earth more suitable for humans to live, that’s it." What?? Tell that to the billions of people that live along the coast, or say anyone that lives in Bangladesh.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, that would be an over reaction that will harm more than it helps. Controls are important but stop all legal fishing is not the answer.
For years I tried to only buy "sustainable" fish. It's almost impossible. Different lists give you different criteria. So much fish is endangered. So much fishing happens in ways that fish that's not even desired gets caught and thrown back in dead. Worth, some fishing techniques even damage the sea bed itself. On top of that most fish in stores is mislabeled making it downright impossible to enjoy fish without ruini…
Disappointing. We share one planet. Nations need to be held accountable by each other for the amount of resources they consume and how they do so. And in this case whales are not even within Japanese territory...
We need to international agreement to stop hunting wild animal outside of the country territory. However, if even one nation will disobey it, it will not work. To make it work, we need to _force_ all nations to obey common law, i.e. we need central government with forces. It doesn't look doable without one or two world wide wars. And the global exchaution of resources is the fastest way to perform these wars. So, to…
But yes, in principle you are right - a common world government will need a world war. Such a government will also, by necessity, need to be a un-elected tyranny in order to exist as a common world government.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I think that in the future societies will look back at our consumption of meat, especially factory farming methods, and wonder why it took us so long to change our attitudes on this issue. How would future societies propose we feed ourselves if we don't eat meat?
Is that a serious question? As one small example, the 500 million or so vegetarians in India seem to do just fine.
