Japan poised to re-open commercial whaling

[thejester]

Since whales are so big, the only real way to kill them is harpooning, which is about the same as putting a dog on a hook and waiting for it to die. It's not like they're going to herd it into a giant pen and then put a bolt through its brain, is it?

Isn't that exactly what should happen when you harpoon a whale - get it directly under the bow, harpoon into the brain, grenade goes boom and it's all over red rover?

Personally I'm opposed to the commercial whaling because I think it's not going to be viable in the long term and eco-tourism would make a ton more money...but having said that, I'm absolutely fascinated by it and would love to go a-whaling.

[SirNitram]

You mean like the ability to learn grammar?

Linka.

A bird noted for it's capability to 'mimic' happens to mimic grammar? And I'm supposed to see this as proof it's language?

The articles claimed that they can learn to distinguish grammatical rules which is rather more than mere mimicry. And you neglected to comment on the second article which discusses cultural evolution among bird populations based on learned communication with complex syntax.

This all points to birds being clever in terms of animals, but I think if they were on-par with whales (Which is where this whole stupid tangent of yours comes from), someone would come out and say 'They've got language' just like they do with cateceans.

The tangent came from the notion that dialects somehow made whales special among the animal kingdom, which they do not.

Did you actually read the entire post, including what was quoted in it? Or did you just latch onto 'Dialects' and begin your silliness? Because it's in specific reply to someone commenting on the fact we now have no doubt there is language for cetaceans.

[Qwerty 42]

You mean like the ability to learn grammar?

Linka.

A bird noted for it's capability to 'mimic' happens to mimic grammar? And I'm supposed to see this as proof it's language?

The articles claimed that they can learn to distinguish grammatical rules which is rather more than mere mimicry. And you neglected to comment on the second article which discusses cultural evolution among bird populations based on learned communication with complex syntax.

This all points to birds being clever in terms of animals, but I think if they were on-par with whales (Which is where this whole stupid tangent of yours comes from), someone would come out and say 'They've got language' just like they do with cateceans.

The tangent came from the notion that dialects somehow made whales special among the animal kingdom, which they do not.

It would, however, make them special enough to avoid them being used for food, which is what I was getting at. Cows don't use dialects because cows are bloody stupid, so we use them for food. They don't need to be the only ones to possess this capability to avoid being used for food.

[Pick]

thejester: I am going to ignore the second part of your post because it personally sickens me.

As to the former, Rye is correct. 60% of whales suffer a "prolonged death" during whaling expeditions. That means being stuck to a hook while you bleed to death or suffocate. We don't even do that to fucking pigs.

[Lord Zentei]

Did you actually read the entire post, including what was quoted in it? Or did you just latch onto 'Dialects' and begin your silliness? Because it's in specific reply to someone commenting on the fact we now have no doubt there is language for cetaceans.

No, actually that is not the case. Here's the exchange:


Qwerty 42: Wasn't there an article posted a while ago about evidence surfacing of whales using different dialects in their speech?

Gil Hamilton: Yeah. There is no doubt about it, whales talk. It's just we don't know how to listen to them yet.

Qwerty 42: I mean, not just that, but they had different dialects depending on where they were geographically?


The dialects were the first point to be raised and "talking" was a response to that. No one mentioned language before you did.

The tangent came from the notion that dialects somehow made whales special among the animal kingdom, which they do not.

It would, however, make them special enough to avoid them being used for food, which is what I was getting at. Cows don't use dialects because cows are bloody stupid, so we use them for food. They don't need to be the only ones to possess this capability to avoid being used for food.

The bird research seems to suggest that such things are not a binary condition.

[Qwerty 42]

Did you actually read the entire post, including what was quoted in it? Or did you just latch onto 'Dialects' and begin your silliness? Because it's in specific reply to someone commenting on the fact we now have no doubt there is language for cetaceans.

No, actually that is not the case. Here's the exchange:


Qwerty 42: Wasn't there an article posted a while ago about evidence surfacing of whales using different dialects in their speech?

Gil Hamilton: Yeah. There is no doubt about it, whales talk. It's just we don't know how to listen to them yet.

Qwerty 42: I mean, not just that, but they had different dialects depending on where they were geographically?


The dialects were the first point to be raised and "talking" was a response to that. No one mentioned language before you did.

The tangent came from the notion that dialects somehow made whales special among the animal kingdom, which they do not.

It would, however, make them special enough to avoid them being used for food, which is what I was getting at. Cows don't use dialects because cows are bloody stupid, so we use them for food. They don't need to be the only ones to possess this capability to avoid being used for food.

The bird research seems to suggest that such things are not a binary condition.

If we assume that development of communication is related to intelligence, which does not strike me as an unreasonable assumption, then it follows that there would be varying levels of advancement in communication as there are in intelligence levels.

The same is also true of colors. There are a lot of shades in between red and yellow. A good comparison to this discussion would be if I were to say to save all of the redish markers and throw away all of the yellow ones, your side of the argument would assume that because there isn't just red and yellow, we should only save ones that are explicitly labeled "red" and throw away everything else regardless of proximity to actually being red, rather than defining how we seperate red hues and yellow hues and dividing them that way.

[Pick]

Why are we bitching about such a tiny point in a massive whole? Don't think that your argumentative prowess can somehow overcome the wealth of scientific data through pure semantics.

Here is a study using mirrors and playback that is often noted in cases regarding cetacean self-awareness, and hence intelligence.
Here is an interesting case regarding use of tools, also considered a behavior indicative of intelligence in this context.
And Here a list of findings from the Univ. of Hawaii Kewalo Basin Marine Mammal Lab that also address the issue of cetacean intellectual capability.

Even assuming that dolphins are only equivalent to birds in regard to their communication skills (which I am not conceding), the other aspects of their nature and behavior are distinctly representative of a more intelligent animal, such as ability to use tools and recognize themselves from an external perspective.

[thejester]

thejester: I am going to ignore the second part of your post because it personally sickens me.

I can only hope you have a bucket next to your computer.

As to the former, Rye is correct. 60% of whales suffer a "prolonged death" during whaling expeditions. That means being stuck to a hook while you bleed to death or suffocate. We don't even do that to fucking pigs.

Yeah, I just read a document which would suggest even 60% is wrong - the criteria for measuring the death of the whale is considered inadequate, the total might be higher. I'd have to agree that based on both this and the intelligence of cetaceans that whaling should be banned.

[Darth Raptor]

And how would you scale that? Do many less intelligent creatures outweigh a few smart ones? How about many slightly less intelligent creatures?

No, at least not in the most general sense. Although there is much variation within a species (Stephen Hawking vs. Paris Hilton), the variation between species is comparitively more vast. Because of this, more intelligent species as a utilitarian whole take precedence over less intelligent species. In terms of overall wellfare, it goes something like Human> dolphin> bonobo> parrot> dog> anaconda> trout> sea urchin, etc. This IS problematic, however, for two main reasons: Firstly, the interdependence of the biosphere. The rights of 17 frogs may trump that of a single heron because said species of heron depends on this particular frog (this does not mean that frogs are more valuable than herons, but that herons as a whole are more valuable than a single hungry indivdual- bad example, I just woke up). Secondly, there is no reliable way to gague intelligence by analyzing an animal's physiology. Every method we've tried be it volume, mass ratios, lobe anatomy or cortical complexity has proven to be unreliable. Until we better understand the brain, we'll have to rely on behavioral analysis.

Well, if the whale were knocked unconcious by the blast, I'm not so sure it would suffer.

The lucky ones may not, but the fact stands; there's insufficient justification for the hunting of whales as a food item. Whale meat is a luxury, a delicacy. Regardless of how it tastes it's not needed by anyone, and the killing method is hit-and-miss AT BEST. They're intelligent, they suffer, and their numbers- while stable (species like the minke are, at least) they'll never be able to support any kind of widespread demand. I'm sure you'll agree that whenever anything is killed, be it a person or a bacterium, you'd better have a damn good reason. This is the crux of my problem: Given everything we know and don't know about whales, I don't see a damn good reason.

Been reading Transmetropolitan?

I actually had to Google it, because I've never heard of it before. Not surprising, as I'm not really into comic books. Sorry, Mr. Luthor. Biology is simply my academic major, and one of my primary areas of interest.

The problem is scaling quantity and quality on the same scale. As for myself, the scale drops quite steeply.

I'll be the first to admit that it IS problematic, especially considering the complexity and frailty of the biosphere. However, it's like charity. It's the right thing to do to give if you're in a position to. You could abuse your place at the top of the food chain ala Dick Cheney, or you could show some humility to the fact that you didn't always occupy that position; indeed, you may not always either.

[Lord Zentei]

The same is also true of colors. There are a lot of shades in between red and yellow. A good comparison to this discussion would be if I were to say to save all of the redish markers and throw away all of the yellow ones, your side of the argument would assume that because there isn't just red and yellow, we should only save ones that are explicitly labeled "red" and throw away everything else regardless of proximity to actually being red, rather than defining how we seperate red hues and yellow hues and dividing them that way.

Quite unfair characterization, my good fellow.

Even assuming that dolphins are only equivalent to birds in regard to their communication skills (which I am not conceding), the other aspects of their nature and behavior are distinctly representative of a more intelligent animal, such as ability to use tools and recognize themselves from an external perspective.

Oy. Don't say I'm claiming something I'm not: if you'll take another gander at the thread, I'm sure you'll see that my post where I dismissed the dialects found among whales was merely to reject that as an argument for their being somehow special. Moreover, tool use is not restricted to Primates and Cetaceans: Linka. My point was that the presence of such specific traits are by themselves insufficient, since they exist in varying degrees among a range of species.

<snip>This IS problematic, however, for two main reasons: Firstly, the interdependence of the biosphere. The rights of 17 frogs may trump that of a single heron because said species of heron depends on this particular frog (this does not mean that frogs are more valuable than herons, but that herons as a whole are more valuable than a single hungry indivdual- bad example, I just woke up). Secondly, there is no reliable way to gague intelligence by analyzing an animal's physiology. Every method we've tried be it volume, mass ratios, lobe anatomy or cortical complexity has proven to be unreliable. Until we better understand the brain, we'll have to rely on behavioral analysis.

By the ethics based of the scaling of intelligences and the variance among animals, we should logically be using only a single food animal: the dumbest one. Or better yet, rely only on dairy products, soy beans and (unfertilized) eggs for our protein. Vegetarian, rather than vegan in other words.

The lucky ones may not, but the fact stands; there's insufficient justification for the hunting of whales as a food item. Whale meat is a luxury, a delicacy. Regardless of how it tastes it's not needed by anyone, and the killing method is hit-and-miss AT BEST. They're intelligent, they suffer, and their numbers- while stable (species like the minke are, at least) they'll never be able to support any kind of widespread demand. I'm sure you'll agree that whenever anything is killed, be it a person or a bacterium, you'd better have a damn good reason. This is the crux of my problem: Given everything we know and don't know about whales, I don't see a damn good reason.

What qualifies as a damn good reason may vary from animal to animal, of course - the definition of which is the heart of the problem itself. I agree that whales will not be able to satisfy widespread demand, though: they will at best be a luxury item with a restrictive quota.

Been reading Transmetropolitan?

I actually had to Google it, because I've never heard of it before. Not surprising, as I'm not really into comic books. Sorry, Mr. Luthor. Biology is simply my academic major, and one of my primary areas of interest.

The idea of industrially grown foods was raised there, with delicacies such as "liver of Welshman paté".

I'll be the first to admit that it IS problematic, especially considering the complexity and frailty of the biosphere. However, it's like charity. It's the right thing to do to give if you're in a position to. You could abuse your place at the top of the food chain ala Dick Cheney, or you could show some humility to the fact that you didn't always occupy that position; indeed, you may not always either.

If we ever are knocked from our top position, I'm not too sure that our record will be of much interest to our successors one way or the other. Speaking of Dick Cheney, I surmise that you oppose all game hunting as well?

[Darth Raptor]

By the ethics based of the scaling of intelligences and the variance among animals, we should logically be using only a single food animal: the dumbest one. Or better yet, rely only on dairy products, soy beans and (unfertilized) eggs for our protein. Vegetarian, rather than vegan in other words.

The problem with this, of course, is that you're placing undue stress on the quality of life for humans. Many people can't afford such alternatives, and world agriculture is not geared toward feeding 6 billion+ vegetarians. I'm not disputing the idea that the dropoff is steap; hell, I agree. Cattle, sheep, goats and chickens are all dumber than shit. They're also heavily integrated into world agriculture. Whales are not. No one's going to starve to death or lose their livelyhood in lieu of whaling. This is not the case for other animals livestock species (including pigs, which is why I can accept their use in the short term).

What qualifies as a damn good reason may vary from animal to animal, of course - the definition of which is the heart of the problem itself. I agree that whales will not be able to satisfy widespread demand, though: they will at best be a luxury item with a restrictive quota.

Absolutely true. I'd only kill a human if he was a threat to myself or other humans. At the opposite end of the scale, the education of a microbiology class is sufficient justification for the sacrifice of bacteria. I'm not claiming to have concrete definitions, as the very scale itself is completely relative. That doesn't mean the granting of rights to nonhumans is not a laudable goal however- merely that it's imperfect.

If we ever are knocked from our top position, I'm not too sure that our record will be of much interest to our successors one way or the other. Speaking of Dick Cheney, I surmise that you oppose all game hunting as well?

It depends on the species. Where I live, white tail deer populations are out of control. Competing herbivores and wolves have been completely irradicated and humans are the only thing in a position to act as a predator. Inexperienced hunters may make messy work of their quarry, it's true, but it's still less cruel than starving and deer are a constant and deadly driving hazard on rural roadways.

Some species, however, there's just no excuse. Canned hunting like the Vice President is oh-so-fond of, for example, is totally indefensible.

[Lord Zentei]

The problem with this, of course, is that you're placing undue stress on the quality of life for humans. Many people can't afford such alternatives, and world agriculture is not geared toward feeding 6 billion+ vegetarians. I'm not disputing the idea that the dropoff is steap; hell, I agree. Cattle, sheep, goats and chickens are all dumber than shit. They're also heavily integrated into world agriculture. Whales are not. No one's going to starve to death or lose their livelyhood in lieu of whaling. This is not the case for other animals livestock species (including pigs, which is why I can accept their use in the short term).

Of course, the whaling industry was a very major one awhile back, and the bans were enacted as a conservation measure as opposed to an idealistic one. Had the stocks not been decimated, for instance by having quotas placed early, it might still be so. Would your argument be different in such a case? (BTW, existing whalers would in fact lose their livelyhoods, not that they are particularly numerous).

Absolutely true. I'd only kill a human if he was a threat to myself or other humans. At the opposite end of the scale, the education of a microbiology class is sufficient justification for the sacrifice of bacteria. I'm not claiming to have concrete definitions, as the very scale itself is completely relative. That doesn't mean the granting of rights to nonhumans is not a laudable goal however- merely that it's imperfect.

Well, we can agree on that, to some extent. My position is that consideration to individuals becomes very rapidly less important as one goes down the scale, whereas this applies much less to the consideration to the species; hence I am very much pro-conservation where that is applicable.

Competing herbivores and wolves have been completely irradicated

I think you meant to say "eradicated", unless radiation was involved.

[Darth Raptor]

Of course, the whaling industry was a very major one awhile back, and the bans were enacted as a conservation measure as opposed to an idealistic one. Had the stocks not been decimated, for instance by having quotas placed early, it might still be so. Would your argument be different in such a case? (BTW, existing whalers would in fact lose their livelyhoods, not that they are particularly numerous).

Slightly. It'd be more analogous to my stance on pork. Fortunately, modern whaling is pretty much dead. No need to phase it out if we don't resuscitate it.

Well, we can agree on that, to some extent. My position is that consideration to individuals becomes very rapidly less important as one goes down the scale, whereas this applies much less to the consideration to the species; hence I am very much pro-conservation where that is applicable.

That's more than reasonable, I think. It's just that my scale doesn't start to really drop rapidly until a few notches below 'human'. It's not like I have much empathy for fish or anything.

I think you meant to say "eradicated", unless radiation was involved.

Me talk good!