Among other things like the issue of Yakuza infiltrating the media in Japan, the nuke disaster, climate change and the prevalence of poop jokes in late-night TV, the one topic that really got my attention was the issue of whaling.
So what do Takeshi and Tsurube think about whaling, the Sea Shepherd and all that?
Their ideas can be summed up simply: how dare the Aussies and others tell Japanese not to whale? It's our culture!!
And that was it. The argument is done. I had heard similar statements before, but seeing someone intelligent like Takeshi put it so simply, and in such a direct way made it really hit me.
The anti-whaling movement cannot win.
But it's not because of the value of whaling itself. The anti-whaling movement is failing because the way they framed the issue.
Before all the hub bub about the Sea Shepherd and all that there were 2 distinct arguments you could use to attack whaling:
- Whaling is bad because whales are noble/intelligent/sentient/whatever creatures. Whales feel pain. Whaling is morally wrong.
Or, the very different stance: - Whaling is bad because many species of whales are still in danger of going extinct, and whaling as an industry is so hard to regulate that it can drive others to dangerous levels as well.
Which of these arguments is stronger?
Obviously the second argument. That is the one I've always been in favor of, but not just for whaling - there is as much concern for many of the ocean's resources, whether they be whales, tuna, sharks or whatever. Over-fishing (and whaling) is a real problem, and it must be addressed.
But the problem is that the Sea Shepherd and other anti-whaling activist groups have focused so much on the cultural/moral aspects of whaling that they have ruined their own position. And that's because not only can you not win a argument like this, making the argument itself weakens your ability to argue.
And it's because the cultural/moral argument is so easy to defeat:
If you say you shouldn't whale because whales feel pain/fear and that they're smart creatures, then what about pigs and other farm animals? Pigs have to be killed in private or it'll cause others watching the slaughter die of heart attacks (making them unusable for human consumption). Takeshi brought that argument up. What about chickens? I've personally seen a chicken recoil in fear from a camera after having a flash go off in its face. Obviously they do learn/react/maybe think about the world around them. So is it OK to keep them in tiny pens, waiting to have their necks broken? I don't think so.
So how can you say people shouldn't whale because it's cruel, when other practices are just as bad?
And while the Sea Shepherd people will then counter with a we're vegetarians so that doesn't apply to us comment, they've still lost, because in admitting that there's cruelty in other areas of agriculture that they're not attacking, it makes their anti-whaling stance seem more and more like cultural elitism (which it is, really, if you look at it from the Japanese point of view).
So the argument is lost before it's even started, and not only that but making anti-whaling arguments from the point of view of moralism only will back whaling defenders even more into a corner. You get people who don't really even give a shit about whaling defending it, because they perceive their culture being attacked.
So please, people, stop saying that killing whales is bad because of the morality point of view. It doesn't matter what the whales feel, the argument cannot win.
So how can you say people shouldn't whale because it's cruel, when other practices are just as bad?
And while the Sea Shepherd people will then counter with a we're vegetarians so that doesn't apply to us comment, they've still lost, because in admitting that there's cruelty in other areas of agriculture that they're not attacking, it makes their anti-whaling stance seem more and more like cultural elitism (which it is, really, if you look at it from the Japanese point of view).
So the argument is lost before it's even started, and not only that but making anti-whaling arguments from the point of view of moralism only will back whaling defenders even more into a corner. You get people who don't really even give a shit about whaling defending it, because they perceive their culture being attacked.
So please, people, stop saying that killing whales is bad because of the morality point of view. It doesn't matter what the whales feel, the argument cannot win.
Thing is you can make the same defeat of the similarly bs "overfishing" argument. Are you going to outlaw hunting kangaroos and deer in your country's just because it's a wild animal? If over-fishing is such an issue, why are you still fishing in your country?
ReplyDeleteIn both cases there is a very clear and obvious double standard that never will be a successful mode of argumentation.
Moreover, it's outright false. Minke whales are not, nor have they ever been, endangered. Not only that, but
the Revised Management Plan (RMP) - the scientific method the International Whaling Commission (IWC) - will eventually use to issue commercial quotas, is so conservative that if it were applied to your own fisheries, they would have to be shut down. And yet RMP currently states that 4,000 minke whales could be hunted.
If you want to make the discussion about sustainability... the conclusion will be that whales *should* be hunted. That is the scientific fact. And thanks to ICR's extensive research, it's incontrovertible.
In fact this debate has already occurred at the academic level. Nothing has changed since then.
This is because, fundamentally, anti-whaling *is* cultural in nature. Some cultures think whales are super-special animals with special abilities that aren't scientifically justified. And some people in those cultures believe it's their right to force their culture on others.
It's a classic "White Man's Burden" situation.
From 1994 conference put together by President Clinton.
Problems and Strategies in the Scientific Management
of Fisheries and Marine Mammals:
From the Tragedy of the Commons
to an Era of Sustainable Development
In his October message to Congress, President Clinton said that "the issue at hand is the absence of a credible, agreed management and monitoring regime that would ensure that commercial whaling is kept within a science-based limit." Professor Douglas Butterworth, of the University of Cape Town, South Africa, and a member of the IWC Scientific Committee, suggested that the Revised Management Plan is just such a regime, analogous to living off the interest of a bank account while conserving the principal. It allows carefully controlled harvests to determine the optimum maintainable productivity of the stocks, while including built-in feedback mechanisms to reduce quotas automatically in the event of depletion. The Revised Management Plan is so risk-averse that if it were applied to other marine resources, it would require an immediate halt not only to aboriginal subsistence hunting of Bowhead whales in Alaska but also to virtually all of the world's fisheries.
Professor Gordon Swartzman of the University of Washington at Seattle was a member of the blue-ribbon panel appointed by the National Marine Fisheries Service to review the Revised Management Plan. The panel searched for flaws in the Plan, he said, but finally concluded that it was so conservative that, under it, commercial whaling of non-endangered species, such as the Minke whale, could be conducted safely.
The panel concluded that adopting the Revised Management Plan at the 1994 meeting of the International Whaling Commission would resolve the issue at hand, the establishment of a science-based international solution to a global conservation problem.
Overfishing is a real issue that should be addressed, especially in cases like tuna where real data exists that shows continued overfishing has caused depletion of the base stock.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you on some points. Especially with Minke whales it is obvious that a carefully monitored take is just fine, as long as whalers don't take too much.
But I totally disagree with you that any anti-whaling argument is a cultural argument. I'm not anti-whaling. Unless its the whaling of species like humpbacks whose numbers are especially in danger. I'm also against shark fin soup because some species of sharks are in danger.
I stated this in my post as a matter of fact. Saying that whaling, killing cows or dogs, raising chickens, or any other living creatures for food or clothing is "wrong" based on culture alone is a silly argument, and one that cannot win. Do I think whales are special so they should be specially protected? No. They aren't any more special than pigs or dogs or ants. I eat pork, I eat chicken and I eat beef. I don't eat whale but not because of the animal. I just don't like the taste, the same as I don't like the taste of liver.
Also, white man's burden has nothing to do with this.
You are very correct when you say some anti-whaling groups are trying to force their cultural values on people. That's just silly. But I am not one of those people.