David @ Tokyo

Poor New Zealand. After the French governmtent sank the Rainbow Warrior in Aukland and killing Fernando Pereira the kiwis have been battered around by larger governments and now act the role of the battered and shaking victim. Even with the culprits in custody the NZ government was eventually forced to let them go after intense economic pressure was put on them by the Mitterrand government. New Zealand is running scared again from fear of a Japanese economic bully. Unable to defend its actions with morality or science the Japanese can only bully their whaling program through with money and economic pressure. The world does see this and this is why the SSCS may lose this battle but win the hearts and minds. It takes bravery to take on the combined economic powers of non-sustainable harvesting nations (Norway, Iceland, Japan). It takes guts to risk ones life for ones beliefs on the high seas. It takes compassion to defend the defenseless from cruel and ruthless killers. The Japaneses government only has money. If put in a position to chose people naturally take the conservationist side. If only the New Zealand government could take it's peoples side and side against the larger economic powers.
 

Houston....we have a troll.
 

IceClass, I am begining to think that myself.

Wasn't it a good editorial though?
 

Yes it was.
Compared to most cookie-cutter reports and sanctimonious editorials we see in a lot of English language press, it was quite well balanced.

I look forward to this sea change continuing and feel that your blog will play its own small role in bringing that around.

Sharing information is good for the environment but creating conflict only leads to wars and those are never good for either people or critters.
Only the war-mongers and profiteers benefit. Which explains parasites like Watson.
 

David and Iceclass I encourge you to read this interesting article http://www.theage.com.au/
articles/2006/11/27/1164476132186.html
"..HUMPBACK whales have a type of brain cell seen only in humans, the great apes, and other cetaceans such as dolphins, US researchers report."
Of coarse I am pessimistic that it will stop you from being pro whaling nevertheless I would like your opinion on it.
 

I've seen the article previously.

Such factors are simply not relevant in my decision making, and given that this finding was only announced recently, it's evident that it's an irrelevant factor for the people who choose not to eat whales, as well.
 

"Such factors are simply not relevant in my decision making..."

WHY?

It is very relevant because it re-enforces the belief that Captain Paul Watson had for decades that whales are highly intelligent mammals.
It re-enforces that whales aren't just "swimming cows".
It re-enforces my anti-whaling views.
It re-enforces that David you choose to ignore the facts,
It re-enforces and you mostly post a one sided argument because it wasn't mentioned in November, and that you give the impression that you have no empathy, compassion and sympathy for other living creatures besides humans.

S.A from Melbourne
 

Melbourne chap,

You are welcome to make whatever decisions you like about your consumption habits, and you can be as irrational as you like about it - but please show respect for people who think differently to you. Are you so self-righteous as to believe that your way of looking at the world is the "right" one?

Whether some species of whale are "highly intelligent" or not is irrelevant to me, and apparently most other meat consumers. Most people simply don't make their meat consumption decisions on such factors. Pigs are known to be more intelligent than cows, yet I've never heard of anyone who is prepared to eat a cow but not a pig on the grounds of pig intelligence. The notion of whale intelligence is dubious enough as it is (even some well-known anti-whaling scientists promote the idea that they "are not dreadfully bright") without then trying to draw a line in some way that puts whales off limits but leaves various other creatures on the menu.

You mention "swimming cows". Can I take it to mean that you believe that cows are OK for eating because they are "dumb enough", by some measure? If so, define the measure.

Finally, if you get the impression that I have no empathy, compassion or sympathy for other living creatures besides humans it indicates more about you than it does about me.
 

You are welcome to make whatever decisions you like about your consumption habits, and you can be as irrational as you like about it - but please show respect for people who think differently to you.

Thanks for the welcome, but I find it hard to show respect to someone who supports the inhumane slaughter of whales. I will try harder though... I aggree with Watson on this one, killing a species that has the same level of intelligence is murder. Find out about it here


Are you so self-righteous as to believe that your way of looking at the world is the "right" one?

I rely on facts of what US scientists have said. But we cannot be 100% sure on anthing these days unless you have that experience yourself, all realities are perceptions. We rely on other people for everything these days. However I still believe in the article and in Watson.

I suggest you also read an essay that Watson wrote in 1997.
You would probably turn a blind eye to it...
S.A from Melb
 

Whales are treated more humanely than Australia's farmed animals.

As I said, animal intelligence is not a criteria commonly used in making decisions about what is fit for consumption, and even at least one anti-whaling american scientist thinks baleen whales aren't "dreadfully bright". You seem happy to skip over this for your favoured "scientific" opinion. As you please. You go on and believe this as well as everything big Paul Watson tells you, just don't expect that rational and just people to agree with you.

This is a reality that you're going to have to accept. Watson is an extremist. Most of the world's people are not. Nature produces all sorts of anomalies.
 

You mention "swimming cows". Can I take it to mean that you believe that cows are OK for eating because they are "dumb enough", by some measure? If so, define the measure.

They aren't very intelligent, in comparison to whales, dolphins and humans. We measure intelligence by the brain size and how complex it is. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure that out. That makes them more suitable for eating, in my opinion.

Whales are treated more humanely than Australia's farmed animals.
Yes sometimes especially when it comes to pigs and chickens. These animals are kept in very tiny cages and are trucked over to slaughterhouses in appalling conditions. That’s why I never eat them. Animals Australia have recently launched a site protesting about how pigs are raised in Australia. It’s disgusting flavourless, bland meat, that has artificial growth hormones pumped in them. They are popular in Australian restaurants because they are very cheap, so then they just add MSG and flavour enhancers in the food.

Cows on the other hand live their life free range, but they are destroying the natural habitat. 70% of Victorias water goes to support the meat industry. I think the problem is that meat has become just a every day food, when really it is a luxury.

So that’s why I only rarely eat meat. And not a big seafood fan either...

But we have to draw the line though…Hunting endangered animals for food in the 21st Century is just not ethical. This is what Japan, Norway and now Iceland is doing

...The problem is how to define intelligence - especially
for a species whose environment and anatomy (no hands etc) is
fundamentally different from ours - and whether we can apply human
concepts or measures of intelligence to other species.
Phillip J. Clapham, Ph.D.
Northeast Fisheries Science Center


So then he puts his own opinion on this… He then says:

…Having worked with these critters for many years, I'd support the general view that: a) baleen whales are not dreadfully bright (much as I love them); b) toothed whales are probably, in general, smarter than baleen whales; and c) we really don't know what goes on in those large brains that some dolphins have.
Phil Clapham

This is just a sample of what Capt. Watson says about this :
...The whale is an organic submarine. A whale may not arrive in a spaceship, but it is itself a living submersible ship. All of its technology is internal and organic. We do not accept this. The human understanding of intelligence is material. The more superior the technology, the more superior the intelligence.
Yet intelligence is relative; it evolves to fulfill the evolutionary needs of a species. All successful species are intelligent in accordance with their ecological position. In this respect, the intelligence of a crocodile or a whale, an elephant or a human is noncomparable. A complex intelligence exists within every sentient creature relevant to its needs. We as humans cannot begin to compare our elaborate intelligence to the complex intelligence of other creatures whose brains or nerves are designed for completely different functions in radically different environments...

S.A from Melbourne
 

That makes them more suitable for eating, in my opinion.

Not that I agree with your criteria, I suggest that you think very hard about why you draw the line where you do. You need to be able to justify this precisely.

The problem the whale eating people have is that nations such as Australia are throwing stones in glass houses. If you have a problem with people eating animals in general, take it up with your own government first.

I'm glad that you agree that whales are treated more humanely than animals such as pigs and chickens.

You suggest that the whaling nations are hunting endangered species. This is quite far from being true. None of the species currently being hunted are in any serious danger of going extinct because of current hunting pressure. The whaling nations agree that truly endangered species should be protected until they have recovered. This is why no one is hunting blue whales or right whales at the current time.
 

Not that I agree with your criteria, I suggest that you think very hard about why you draw the line where you do. You need to be able to justify this precisely.
I draw the line at intelligence, killing highly intelligent animals for food is okay for some people but not for me thanks...

I'm glad that you agree that whales are treated more humanely than animals such as pigs and chickens.
Yes in some situations, but one unethical practice cannot justify another unethical practice.
Some Minke whales take 30 slow minutes to die. It would definitely take longer for larger whales that Japan kills. That is unacceptable.
I won’t support whaling as much as I won’t support battery hens and pigs.
Another reason is intelligent, charismatic animals such as whales, dolphins should be spared the death penalty, as they are also providing a whale watching industry in Australia and around the world.


This is a reality that you're going to have to accept. Watson is an extremist. Most of the world's people are not.
If you call people extreme and eco terrorists and yet cannot actually accurately criticise one aspect of what they’re saying your argument falls flat. Why not criticise the four-thousand-word essay that Captain Paul Watson wrote. Too difficult? “Most of the world aren’t extreme”-that tells me very little. I’m sorry.

It is the whaling issue made me think about the animal welfare issues around the world.

The big question is:

Where do you draw the line David?

Would you eat every single animal such as dogs, if you had the chance?

If so why or why not?

S.A from Melbourne
 

Melbourne chap,

I draw the line at intelligence

As I mentioned, you need to be able to justify your decisions precisely.

Questions for you
Q: How intelligent and how do you definitively define intelligence?
Q: If you think there are only two categories - "intelligent", and "not intelligent", how do you determine which species falls in to which category?

one unethical practice cannot justify another unethical practice.

The point however is that you are complaining about whaling people's activities when there are more than enough "problems" in your homeland. Whaling peoples will continue to ignore your complaints so long as people in your own country continue to behave in the manner that they do. Pull out the weeds in your own backyard before complaining about your neighbours'.

That is unacceptable.

There is always room for improvement, but improvement can not be achieved by attempting to block attempts at progress. Whales today are killed far more swiftly than when Australia had a whaling industry, which collapsed due to overexploitation.

I won’t support whaling

No one is asking you to support whaling. A person who is not "anti-whaling" need not be "pro-whaling". Any decent human being however should display some respect for his fellow man.

they are also providing a whale watching industry in Australia and around the world.

You value animal life based on how much pleasure it provides tourists? That's your perogative. Others value animal life based on the food and related culture it supports. Your view of the world is not the only one.

If you call people extreme and eco terrorists and yet cannot actually accurately criticise one aspect of what they’re saying

Watson and his extremist tactics have been roundly criticised even by Australia leaders. This much is patently obviously and no amount of rational comment from me or others here can assist you any further.

Why not criticise the four-thousand-word essay that Captain Paul Watson wrote. Too difficult?

Whipdeedoo. Congratulations to Paul Watson for being able to produce a 4000 word essay that a young Aussie thinks is really wonderful.

Would you eat every single animal such as dogs, if you had the chance?

I suggest you give yourself a few years, travel to various parts of the world, including to places where the environment is entirely different to that of Australia, and learn how people in other parts of the world have evolved, and try to understand why cultural differences can be seen amongst people of different nations today.

I doubt I will respond to any further comments from you - my blog is not aimed at producing information that people such as you might find informative. In short, you are wasting your time by commenting here.
 

I would take that as a yes you would eat every animal including dogs and cats.

David I don’t know about you, but I think there is nothing wrong with healthy debate. It can be enjoyable.
It makes me think outside the square. It makes me learn more, I think it’s a great way to learn.
I think the answers you've come up with have been great until the last few statements. Seems like you’ve had a bad day at the office…

I don't or I’m not going to pretend to be an expert brain surgeon or any scientist for that matter, I merely just have an opinion on whaling that I feel strongly about and I enjoy reading the news and keeping up to date with the events around the world.

I doubt I will respond to any further comments from you - my blog is not aimed at producing information that people such as you might find informative.

So then who is your blog aimed at then?
Who then is your target audience?
Scientists?
Well travelled people over 40?
And why would you limit your audience? Remember only a handful of people post here. I suppose you don’t care too much.

Most people are neutral when it comes to whaling, it something that simply doesn’t concern them or effect their daily life at all. I can understand that.

Whipdeedoo. Congratulations to Paul Watson for being able to produce a 4000 word essay that a young Aussie thinks is really wonderful.

Yes whipedeedoo.

I suggest you give yourself a few years, travel to various parts of the world, including to places where the environment is entirely different to that of Australia, and learn how people in other parts of the world have evolved, and try to understand why cultural differences can be seen amongst people of different nations today.

Well I can’t afford to travel to various parts of the world. Maybe you’re extremely rich, and have a mansion for a house, and drive a sports car to work but not me. Not when I’m a student anyway, I need to save heaps. Airfares, houses and cars nowadays are too expensive.

I’d rather put a little non-for-profit charities. Is there a charity which you like/support David? Most people spend money on themselves, that is well known.

You recently deleted one of my posts in JARPA II 2006/2007 Update #20

Why? If it offended you in some way or from I’m sorry to hear that.

Q: How intelligent and how do you definitively define intelligence?
Q: If you think there are only two categories - "intelligent", and "not intelligent", how do you determine which species falls in to which category?

I would like to spend some time to answer these questions. I will definitely do some more research.

In short, you are wasting your time by commenting here.

Chances are this post will be deleted or any other random post. This will be therefore my last post then.

S.A from Melbourne
 

David I don’t know about you, but I think there is nothing wrong with healthy debate.

Perhaps I should make it clear that I've wasted more of my life "debating" things with people with beliefs such as yours than I cared to. Doing so produces no benefit for me. So if you wish to have such a debate, I'm simply telling you that you're in the wrong place.

So then who is your blog aimed at then?

People with the same set of guiding principles as myself. Generally, people who say they oppose whaling "because whales are endangered".

And why would you limit your audience?

Nothing I can say to people with values such as yours will make a difference. The only achievement is a waste of my time, which is not something I strive for.

Well I can’t afford to travel to various parts of the world.

Then go to your local book or video store or read widely on the Internet, or make friends with foreign people in Australia.

Maybe you’re extremely rich, and have a mansion for a house, and drive a sports car to work

You may also like to get a book about everyday life in Tokyo.

Is there a charity which you like/support David?

The groups I support do not go around trying to impose their beliefs on others.

You recently deleted one of my posts in JARPA II 2006/2007 Update #20

Why?

You comment specifically was not deleted, although I thought it was quite inappropriate. A subsequent comment by a chap who lives no where near the ocean, bang in the middle of the USA, was worse, so I turned off comments on that thread. They were thoroughly inappropriate by human standards, and 99% unlikely to stimulate productive discussions here. A post about the loss of a human life is not a place for speculative, uninformed comments. If people want to write such stuff as that they can set up their own blog.

This will be therefore my last post then.

I suggest that that will save us both a lot of time. As long as you believe that some animals are too smart for eating, you are better to stay away from whaling discussions, because most people who oppose whaling oppose it for completely different reasons. Your beliefs would see you fit in better in a forum for people who believe in animal rights or something like that, I imagine.
 

Just archiving the linked article before it vanishes:

Hype and harpoons

The Minister for the Environment, Chris Carter, has in the last several years become one of the more strident anti-whaling advocates, both within New Zealand and in broader diplomatic circles, writes The Press in an editorial.

In a debate in which argument has often been conducted at the high end of the emotional spectrum, Carter has advanced New Zealand's anti-whaling case with some heat. The results, it must be said, have not been all that great. Last year the International Whaling Commission passed a non-binding resolution declaring that a moratorium on commercial whaling is no longer necessary. And a pro-whaling group of countries in the northern hemisphere labelled Carter – predictably but perhaps not inaccurately – a marginalised extremist.

Carter's attitude towards whaling has been characterised by a kind of irritatingly preachy sanctimoniousness. So when the minister got himself into a tangle over a secret mission to help a distressed whaler last week it was hard to suppress a smirk. Earlier in the week, Carter had released videotape taken by the air force of a Japanese whaling fleet at work harpooning and processing whales in the Ross Sea as part of what the Japanese call their "scientific" whale research programme. The aim was to put pressure on the Japanese over their activities although it was somewhat unusual to see a government minister appear to be doing Greenpeace's propaganda work.

As Carter was doing this, he was not to know that by the end of the week the Government would be called on to assist the Japanese whaling fleet by airlifting an ailing seaman to hospital. Although it would have been unthinkable to decline to assist, the rescue clearly embarrassed the Government. It went ahead only after several days of diplomatic wrangling and was conducted with a maximum of furtiveness to try to prevent it becoming publicly known.

The week's events are a demonstration of the risk New Zealand has taken in striking an overly self-righteous attitude about whaling. Nice as it is to have whales in the ocean, the matter is of minimal significance to us. The Japanese pretence that it is engaged in some kind of scientific activity may be plainly false, but to other countries such as Iceland, which has resumed commercial whaling, and other communities the activity has some importance.

It would not hurt to remember that while it may suit Carter's purposes to show lurid video clips of the unpleasant reality of the killing and butchering of whales, the same kind of emotional response he is seeking to generate among the public could also be evoked by graphic shots from meatworks of the processing of lambs into the cutlets we all happily consume.

The adoption of a toplofty, moralising line on whaling is something better left to the campaigners. Finger-wagging and scolding are unlikely to do much to change anyone's attitude. Those nations that engage in whaling have real interests they are trying to protect, no less valid than the interests of those such as New Zealand who are trying to stop them. If they are to be persuaded to change, their interests must be addressed, not patronisingly dismissed. When a minister substitutes lectures for argument and indulges in silly publicity stunts, it raises a suspicion that his diplomatic skills are not up to the task.
 

"You comment specifically was not deleted, although I thought it was quite inappropriate. A subsequent comment by a chap who lives no where near the ocean, bang in the middle of the USA, was worse, so I turned off comments on that thread."

I hope I was "chap who lives nowhere near the ocean" as I spent more time in the water yesterday surfing then you have spent in the ocean all year. I live right on the beach. The whales and dolphins that I see are not on the cover of an ICR webpage but right in front of my house. Not that you need to be near shore to care about the defense of the oceans. I just want to point out (again) where you are wrong. And I have been to sea with the merchant fleet. I have pissed more saltwater then you have sailed on. So to hear you talk this sanctimonious B.S. just highlites that you are simply ignorant. You post a pretty smattering of nice colored charts but refuse to debate anyone with a counter point of view. With your flag ship a burnt and floundering hulk all you can do is pout about the SSCS. Maybe you should look in the mirror. Who claims the intellectual high ground yet runs from debate after hurling insults like terrorist and racist. Who talks high and mighty about respect and civility on the high seas yet is curiously quiet about Japans responsibility with their floundering ship. It seems that you are simply everything you rail against only on the opposite side of the debate.