
Japan to withdraw from the International Whaling Commission - kn8
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-46682976
======
avar
The article really doesn't do a good job of explaining what's going on, in
particular:

> It means Japan will be able to freely hunt species currently protected by
> the IWC, like minke whales.

Japan has already been hunting Minke whale, in 2016 they killed more than
300[1].

What's changing here is not the facts on the ground, but a maneuver in
international diplomacy. Japan, Iceland and Norway have opposed the IWC's
total ban on whaling. Japan has, until now, decided to work around this by
claiming the whaling is "scientific", an obvious farce. It's been commercial
whaling in all but name. Iceland and Norway have made no such claim, but
issued commercial quotas in defiance of the moratorium.

Now Japan is going to withdraw from the IWC entirely, which e.g. Canada did a
long time ago[2] citing similar arguments.

They're also going to restrict their whaling to their "territorial waters and
economic zones", i.e. stop hunting in the Arctic. This was arguably the most
controversial part of what they were doing before, e.g. Iceland and Norway
don't hunt whales outside of their EEC.

1\.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whaling_in_Japan#Antarctica](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whaling_in_Japan#Antarctica)

2\.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Whaling_Commissi...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Whaling_Commission#Allegation_of_politicising_science)

------
temeritatis
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?

~~~
omnius19
I generally see that rational applied to whaling only when discussing
indigenous populations such as the Inuit in Alaska. They are whaling in small
boats and canoes using traditional techniques. Japan’s excuse for whaling is
“scientific study.” I don’t think they are claiming to whale for cultural
reasons, nor are they whaling for subsistence, which is allowed under
international law.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aboriginal_whaling](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aboriginal_whaling)

~~~
cavanasm
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.

~~~
el_nahual
Not exactly meaningful when talking about highly migratory species!

~~~
ngngngng
And way less fun for making edgy TV shows about stopping them.

------
kenneth
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 to be a hypocrite. I'll eat anything, and have
tried many things people find objectionable (horse, whale, rabbit, shark,
etc.). I know about myself that I'm not willing to go full vegetarian or
vegan, and actively choose to eat meat. While I hate vegans that try to force
their choice on others, I do appreciate the clarity and lack of hypocrisy of
vegans who choose it for themselves. What I really hate is the hypocrisy of
those who try to judge others for their choices while being no better
themselves (meat eaters who complain about what other meats eaters eat)

~~~
gfodor
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, and so
if you deem it morally wrong to eat meat, even partially going against the
grain of wider society is a difficult but just act even if you fail to do so
all the time. This is true for any social norm which you consider unjust.

Just throwing your hands up and saying that you may as well just eat any once-
living creature on equal terms since it means you won't be a hypocrite seems
worse than deducing what ought to be the right way to behave and then try to
build a framework to, perhaps only in-part, act towards that end. You may
conclude that all creatures are the same, and continue your actions, but it
sounds like you just consider the risk of being a hypocrite being an
overriding concern.

For me, I personally have tried to scale back my meat eating over time, since
I believe it to be unclear how much animals suffer in farming conditions and
how much they should have moral standing. I assume the degree to which these
are true is somewhat proportional to how close these animals are in mental and
physical form to humans.

So, I no longer eat any mammals and increasingly try to prefer fish over
birds. I began by cutting off pork (which I now can no longer stomach) and
then beef. The net effect of this lifestyle may mean I am a "hypocrite", since
I still eat animals and even occasionally just yield to the temptation to eat
a burger, but it likely results in less net suffering, and may in the long
term result in transitioning completely off of meat.

~~~
kenneth
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.

------
ajmurmann
Can we please have a global moratorium on all fishing for a few years? We are
fishing the seas empty. I'm more than happy to pay for my share of the
unsold/uncaught fish. This is such a disheartening example of the tragedy of
the commons.

~~~
wolco
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.

~~~
ajmurmann
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 ruining the planet.

~~~
nradov
Do you consider the Seafood Watch program inadequate?

[http://www.seafoodwatch.org/](http://www.seafoodwatch.org/)

------
javagram
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?

~~~
hn_throwaway_99
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 playing a game, or
enjoying a pet by a human. And folks could coo over these adorable pictures
while eating bacon or a burger.

And similarly people have no problem eating pork or beef, but express sheer
disgust at the thought of eating horse or dog meat. At some point you realize
that these distinctions are arbitrary.

This is certainly a very unpopular opinion in the population at large, but
I've always been interested in how cultures can look back at earlier versions
of themselves and be amazed at how wrong humans previously were, e.g. with
slavery, treatment of women, colonialism, attitudes toward homosexuality, etc.
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.

~~~
malvosenior
> _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?

~~~
hn_throwaway_99
Is that a serious question? As one small example, the 500 million or so
vegetarians in India seem to do just fine.

~~~
platz
I thought there were a few required proteins that were very hard to supply in
the body without an animal source

~~~
hkyeti
No, that myth was debunked decades ago. You can get all essential amino acids
from a normal variety of plant foods, and the body combines them naturally. Or
in case of some all essential amino acids are in the same plant.

~~~
nec4b
Tell that to the doctors that have to save malnourished vegan children.

------
lm2s
Just recently I learned that Japan is not the only country that hunts whales.
It seems Norway also does it and to a larger scale.

This isn't an excuse for Japan, just sharing this info for others that might
unaware that Japan isn't alone in this.

~~~
thomasahle
Yes, there's a plot at
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whaling#Greenland](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whaling#Greenland)
comparing Japan to Scandinavia.

Japan used to whale way more than any other country though (pre 80's), so
hopefully this move doesn't signal returning to those levels.

------
maxxxxx
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 not because they are smarter.

The only difference I see is that whales are more in the open while the
suffering of farm animals is neatly hidden away from most of us.

We should strive to treat animals much, much better but that should apply to
all and not just to a few favored ones like whales while forgetting others.

~~~
endangered
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 cause the extinction of whales.

~~~
sc4les
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

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

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

------
fujimotos
Three facts.

1\. Most of Japanese people have exactly _zero_ interest about whaling.

2\. Nor they do not understand why western people get so upset about it.
("What's so different with, say, tuna fishing?")

3\. Anti-whaling protesters (e.g. Sea Shepherd) are really worsening the
situation. Their "activism" (like stealing whale meats) is perceived as, at
best, stupid.

This is really a communication problem, guys. Whaling could have been ended
many years ago, if no one made such a big deal out of it.

~~~
arcticfox
> This is really a communication problem, guys. Whaling could have been ended
> many years ago, if no one made such a big deal out of it.

I don't follow that conclusion at all. Really doesn't seem like that's how it
would have played out to me; maybe it wouldn't have been _worse_ than it is
today, but I can't imagine they were simply being encouraged to whale to be
ornery.

------
fromdowntown
Well they never really stopped, they just claimed it would be used for
research and the meat was sold after the research was done.

From the article "Japan has caught between about 200 and 1,200 whales each
year, saying it is investigating stock levels to see whether the whales are
endangered or not."

------
siffland
> Government spokesman Yoshihide Suga said commercial whaling would be
> restricted to Japanese territorial waters and economic zones.

Someone needs to invent an underwater whale call (like a duck call) to lure
the whales away from Japanese water.

------
Santosh83
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...

~~~
v_lisivka
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 win, we need to create mess first, then clean up.

~~~
lostlogin
> We need to international agreement to stop hunting wild animal outside of
> the country territory.

This isn’t enough. Whales pass through many countries waters, so killing them
in Japan’s waters doesn’t only affect Japan.

------
kristofferR
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.

~~~
pmden
Is there anything you could compare it to, for people who haven't had the
chance? I'm vaguely aware the postwar British government promoted corned whale
meat an unrationed alternative to normal meats, and that it (unsurprisingly)
tasted quite like corned beef.

~~~
kristofferR
It tastes like a good steak, just with more umami and tenderness and perhaps a
slight hint of fish oil, depending on how it's prepared. There's also
something about its deep dark red wine color that feels luxurious.

It's easy to avoiding the fish oil taste of you're careful.

------
bravefoot
As one commentator, Michael Cucek, pointed out (0), this could result in less
whales being killed. There isn't that much of a market for whale in Japan and
whaling operations have mostly been subsidised for "research" purposes.
(0)[https://mobile.twitter.com/MichaelTCucek/status/107560724374...](https://mobile.twitter.com/MichaelTCucek/status/1075607243742097408)

~~~
throwaway2048
That is one of the stupidest parts of all about this whole affair, nobody even
wants whale meat in Japan, so the entire thing is just a senseless stunt.

------
myrandomcomment
There is zero reason for whaling in Japan beyond the governments desire to
protect a dying industry and a political need to look strong to conservative /
right wing / nationalist voters. I have spent a considerable amount of time in
Japan (collectively nearly 3 years) and visit once a month for work. None of
my Japanese friends or colleagues will eat whale. They find the whole thing
silly and feel the industry should just end. Their collective ages are between
30 to 70 and they represent a good cross section of backgrounds. This is a
nitch right wing issue.

------
chewz
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.

~~~
michaelcampbell
On the "silver lining" side of that, is it conceivable that once this
generation dies out the pressure for whale goods decreases? Is the younger
generation also asking for this?

~~~
ethbro
[https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-35397749](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-
asia-35397749)

 _But Junko Sakuma thinks the answer lies in the fact that Japan 's whaling is
government-run, a large bureaucracy with research budgets, annual plans,
promotions and pensions.

"If the number of staff in a bureaucrat's office decreases while they are in
charge, they feel tremendous shame," she says.

"Which means most of the bureaucrats will fight to keep the whaling section in
their ministry at all costs. And that is true with the politicians as well. If
the issue is closely related to their constituency, they will promise to bring
back commercial whaling. It is a way of keeping their seats."_

------
jboxee
with climate change, the jokes on them

------
aurizon
As far as I am concerned, as a Canadian, I would remove the 'most favored
nation' status from Japan. This would add import duties to all Japanese
imports to Canada. that would far exceed any whaling profits. If you can not
persuade them peacefully, 'club them to the ground' by adding the USA to also
deny them MFN status.

~~~
joecool1029
As a Canadian you should probably first work on getting your country to stop
overfishing tuna so the supply doesn't crash like cod did:
[https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/our-failure-to-
pr...](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/our-failure-to-protect-the-
bigeye-tuna-1.4912914)

~~~
monocasa
A country can work on several things at once.

