In winter, I'm a Buddhist,
And in summer, I'm a nudist.
- Joe Gould
"My Religion"
In fact the whole of Japan is a pure invention. There is no such country, there are no such people.
- Oscar Wilde, aware in 1889 that popular conceptions about the country and its people are mostly fiction.
Not even 10% of what Japanese people are thinking is communicated overseas.
- Watanabe Tsuneo of CSIS
All foreign correspondents, whenever they desert statistics for judgments of opinion...become models of self-deception. They may call themselves, with proper gravity, ‘reporters’. But...they are nothing but quack psychiatrists who do not even know that this is the field they practise.
- Alistair Cooke
Where all news comes at second-hand, where all the testimony is uncertain, men cease to respond to truths, and respond simply to opinions. The environment in which they act is not the realities themselves, but the pseudo-environment of reports, rumors, and guesses.
- Walter Lippmann
We want...a revolution - a turning of the wheel, so that the state becomes once again the servant of the people, and not the other way around. We are the progressives now, comrades, (and) you the reactionaries.
- Daniel Hannan
If the textbook says, "It is well known that...", you can be sure that is a very good place to begin a research inquiry.
- Isaiah Bowman, geographer and former president of Johns Hopkins University
The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest Rome become bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.
- Cicero (55 BC)
We do not need a censorship of the press. We have a censorship by the press. It is not we who silence the press. It is the press that silences us. It is not a case of the Commonwealth settling how much the editors shall say; it is a case of the editors settling how much the Commonwealth shall know. If we attack the press, we shall be rebelling, not repressing.
- G.K. Chesterton
You can see a lot by looking.
- Yogi Berra
All text copyright 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 by William Sakovich
E-mail:
ampontan
- at -
gol
- dot -
com
bender said
Good article. Unless you’re a veggie, no one is going to seriously listen to your “cruelty” argument, that’s for sure. Many anti-whalers are preaching what is and what is not cruel towards the Japanese, which is essentially preaching how one’s culture is more civilized than another’s- that is really close to being racist, I think, and seeing the BBC Have Your Say comments, just makes my belief become firmer. And the whales Japan hunts are not endangered, so it’s not same as hunting gorillas or chimps. Probably closer to hunting rabbits and roos (as in the article) in Australia. It’s kind of dishonest to argue that they are.
john k said
It is all about what is acceptable stocks.
No one complains about eating beef or chicken, other than how they are reared and killed. But this food group is not in short supply. What about eating Tiger meat? This animal is on the official endangered species, it is almost, near extinct. If a country or a restaurant served up plates of Tiger steak, what would be the reaction..?? It is still meat!
Fishing for Cod and general white fish in the North sea is becoming more difficult owing to dwindling fish population or stocks. The same is true for Tuna in seas around the Philippines. All over the world fishing is becoming more and more difficult, why, there is less fish.
There may come a time when Cod or Tuna fishing will be banned because of fear of becoming extinct. Should this occur, what will happen when fishermen actively go out to hunt and catch said fish? Probably the same type of reactions as are seen on the HYS on BBC website.
So, whilst some may see the argument as a cultural one, hard to ignore, it is more about availability. If the world’s oceans had more whales than you can shake a stick at would anyone complain at whaling, I very much doubt it. The cruelty issue appears to stem more from the fact that….”oh, there are so few left, how can you eat it, that may be the last one ever caught…..how could you, that is cruel”. The cruelty not being linked to the pain or suffering aspect related to the method of capture of the animal, but the cruelty of eating the last one! So it is more of a perception what one is doing, how could you make a species extinct?
It cannot also be a “cute” issue either. Rabbits are seen as cute, but eaten all over the world, does anyone complain about Rabbits being eaten to extinction….no. In Africa, many game animals are seen as cute and cuddly, certainly by children, but are readily eaten, why, because there is a plethora of them.
Conversely, what about food that is quiet literally hard to stomach? In the Philippines there is a wonderful delicacy, Balout. Basically it is raw egg, but with the yoke having changed to a small foetus i.e. a small chick. The egg is then pierced to create a small hole and is “drunk” whole; plenty of eggs available. Many see the “eating” of a foetus or chick as cruel, but it continues. Why, not because it is a cultural thing, but because of availability. Plenty of eggs.
So, it has nothing to do with culture or race, but availability. Since culture is “man made” i.e. a series of beliefs and organisation of a group of people, and “race” is just a group of people whose features are all very similar. What ever your culture or race, if a food source is in plentiful supply, you eat it. If it is not, you can’t.
bender said
It is all about what is acceptable stocks.
Is it that simple? Hard to read that from comments made by anti-whaling constituents.
BTW, Japan does argue every year at the IWC that some species of whales are abundant enough to be cultivated. And it is backed up by science, thanks to their research…if you want to argue it’s pseudo-science, go ahead.
Here’s the link: http://www.icrwhale.org/03-A.htm
john k said
That why you must separate the emotions, rhetoric and words, from the facts.
When a food source is widely available….who complains?
Peter Pan said
John K,
“When a food source is widely available….who complains?”
See people eating Dog in China, Korea, Philipines etc and how westerners tend to react. Almost everyone who’s against it will have something to say about the dog being ‘Man’s best friend’ and no mention of dogs being endangered (because they’re not).
john k said
Peter Pan
That is precisely the point. They complain…ie a reason for not being happy or satisfied. They may complain that they are not satisfied with the reason why China, Korea etc eat dog, but that is a personal emotive reaction, to their own personal feelings towards an animal and treatment to that animal.
But that is very different from whether there are enough dogs to eat.
Being “man’s best friend” is irrelevant.
Do you like or like others eating dog?…yes, or no….that is a personal perspective and has nothing to do with a fact.
Are there enough dogs to eat….yes or no. The answer, is a fact.
If you can’t see the difference, then next time you go to a restaurant and look at the menu and choose what is it you are deciding to eat, ask your self this question. Are you choosing based upon what you like to eat, your personal preferences or what others tell you it is acceptable to eat it or….. because it is on the menu and hence available!
ponta said
John K
I am a little bit confused. I have some questions to you.
First do you think whaling and eating whale meat is acceptable?
Second do you think what is acceptable to eat has nothing to do with culture?
Third do you think bringing up culture and race and attacking them in BBC have your say section as to whaling issue is acceptable because it is personal opinion?
john k said
Ponta:
Not sure why you are confused, however.
1) If the breed/type of whale that is being eaten is NOT on the endangered species and is NOT near extinction, then, yes I do.
2)Culture plays a very large part of what is acceptable to eat. If a food source is indigenous to that country, then yes, it is cultural. If the food source is found beyond their shores, which is accessible by anyone, than it is not cultural. However, if the food source has a migratory pattern and passes through that country, then it can be considered, cultural, but not necessarily unique.
What is then considered “acceptable” to eat depends upon social issues prevalent in that country which may or may not be influenced by its culture.
For example, mountain farmers in the Italian Dolomites shot small migratory birds, but only in that region of Italy, no where else. Not everyone in Italy considers that practice to be acceptable. But it is quiet clearly cultural.
3)If it is a personal opinion, then yes. Every opinion we have, say or feel, is a personal one based upon or shaped by our experiences within a society and culture and life itself. If one is not allowed or permitted to express ones views, based upon such experiences, albeit positively or negatively, then we are only accepting or allowing a subjective point of view. This then naturally gravitates towards a “popular” opinion; an opinion that is considered acceptable by the majority of people within that country/state. Being popular doesn’t make it right or wrong, only laws do.
Laws are based upon the social structure of that society which make it acceptable or not, such as how/where/when to air ones own views in public. Laws that define what are acceptable limits of personal expression, such as the UK Public Order Act and in extreme cases, laws that prevent “opinion” all together.
Just look at any old fashioned communistic state or dictatorship around the world. A dissenting voice is quashed. It doesn’t make the voice, or the opinion, wrong. In such cases the “majority” voice or any voice is forbidden from expressing their opinions. Just look at Pakistan today!…is that considered acceptable?
So, is the opinion expressed, breaking the law?
ponta said
john k
Thank you for the clarification. I appreciate it.
1)So it is acceptable if it is not near extinction, and scientific research, it seems to me, says it is not near extinction. what hesitation ,if any, do you have to say conclusively it is acceptable?
2)In your opinion, in this particular case, the fact that eating whale meat is acceptable has nothing to do with culture, is that it?
According to your definition, “culture is “man made” i.e. a series of beliefs and organisation of a group of people,” and the Japanese hold no negative attitude toward eating whale meat.
3)I hold the freedom of expression in highest esteem. And I don’t think the opinion expressed is breaking the law. But I am bit surprised the opinions that smack of racist are expressed and accepted under the BBC moderation. Anyway it was enlightening, in that sense, it was good, for the Japanese that so many Brits had such opinions toward the Japanese.
john k said
Ponta:
1) If the scientific research that proves that a type/breed of species is not, nor anywhere near extinction, then that research must be open to independent scrutiny to validate and corroborate the findings. Just as any theory must be. If proven, that there is a “bountiful” supply, then it comes down to personal opinion. This is entirely different to factual evidence.
My personal feelings on the matter are that if someone wants to go eat whale meat (assuming a plentiful and abundant supply), fair enough, just as it’s ok for someone to go eat dog. Why would I prevent someone from eating a food source that they enjoy eating, just because of my own personal opinion? I may complain I may dislike it, but so what??
But if there is factual evidence of dwindling stocks and the species is near extinction, then no. My personal feelings are given way to ensure that that species continues to survive.
2) As I said if the migratory pattern of the species of whale comes sufficiently close to the shores of Japan, i.e. they can be seen from shore, ergo, lets go fish and try it, it can then be considered a “cultural” food source.
Do Japanese believe it is ok to eat Springboks? They would probably ask, what is a springboks? And that’s the point. If they do not know about something, it cannot be cultural. If they explored the plains of Africa, they would see the springbok. Does killing and exporting the springbok back to Japan make it cultural??…no. Why, because the springbok is not indigenous to Japan.
So, where does “holding no negative belief” in eating whale meat come from? Is it historical…obviously it must be. But, before ships that could travel beyond the shores of Japan were invented, did Japanese fish and eat whale meat. If so was it because they were easily fished from smaller “day boats” or even from the shore, which anyone could see the whales swimming close by, from say a hill top? If yes, then it can be considered cultural. Just as eating springbok for Afrikaners is, once they learnt how to catch such fast animals.
If the Japanese only ate whale meat from the onset of larger ocean going vessels, that is not cultural. It is just a liking for that food source from a different location beyond its own shores.
ampontan said
Ponta: I didn’t write it at first, but went back and added yesterday that the people who wrote their opinions came from different places. Many are from the UK, but some those comments also were from continental Europe, Canada, the US, and even a couple from Asia.
ponta said
Thanks john k
I think you would consider Sushi as a part of Japanese culture, and yet a lot of food source for Sushi now come not form shore and nor from the inland of Japan. Does that make sushi non-Japanese food? The ingredient of miso soup is soy bean which I think is largely imported from abroad. Does that make drinking miso-soup not a part of Japanese culture?
I think eating whale meat as against dog meat has been acceptable by Japanese culture, Japanese cultural standard ,whether you hunt whales near Japan or not.
And I think pro-whaling people are saying the whaling has been a part of Japanese culture and they are saying anti-whaling should count as cultural imperialism when ethically it is as good as eating beef and cows, ecologically there is no problem, economically it is Japan’s problem and none of their business.
I don’t think anti-whaling argument is based on racism, but when the comments regarding the issue are full of hate-speech against Japan and Japanese of irrelevant topics, it is far from unreasonable to assume that argument is largely motivated by such bias.
john k said
Sorry Ponta, but your muddying the waters again.
Sushi that is made with ingredients which do not come from Japanese shores does not make it non-Japanese.
You can answer this simple question yourself.
Which came first, the invention of sushi or the importing of food to make the sushi?
The former is cultural, the later is economic and supply/demand issues.
ponta said
john k
thanks,
And sorry I am not sure which is muddying the waters again.
The invention of sushi comes first, and many ingredient of Sushi comes from abroad, in some cases, Japanese ships go out fishing for it. Eating sushi is a part of Japanese culture and fishing and importing is necessary for it.
The whaling and several whale meat dishes cooked in Japanese way comes first, and now they hunt whale abroad.
I don’t see the difference.
And what do you think of the part that anti-whaling is (at least partly ) motivated by cultural imperialism or even racism? Do you feel that?
Anpontan.
Thanks for the information.
john k said
Ponta
OK, …Imagine you are back in Japan, say 400 years ago.
You are presented with a dish of sushi. Where do you think the sushi came from…local waters, or important from some distant waters via large vessels with refrigeration units?
Refrigeration units did not exist then…so ergo it must be local, neh? The fish is caught locally, for its freshness. The locals in their own locally made vessels go out for several hours to find and catch fish. That fish is taken ashore, still fresh. So the fish is local. If the fish was caught several hundreds of miles off shore, by the time the vessel arrived back in port, it would no longer be fresh…why…only sail power and best speed in those days around10knots = more than 3 days of sailing!
So, was the whale meat caught locally or was it fished for many many miles of shore, which requires days of sailing, i.e. what you are calling “abroad”?
Again, you can answer this question yourself…and the answer is obvious!
Anti whaling feelings, as I have mentioned several times above, has nothing to do with cultural/imperial or racial comments. They may be interpreted or even presented in such a fashion, but the core of their distaste/complaint etc, if you peel away the layers of their arguments, is what is seen as “cruelty”. And as mentioned above, their definition of cruelty is more mental perception than anything else. Because killing animals for food, is ostensibly cruel, no matter how one looks at it, whether it be cow, pig, chicken …etc etc.
ponta said
john k
Thanks.
I understand all you said, except that you claim that eating sushi is a part of Japanese culture whether you fish far away from Japan to make it but eating whale dishes cooked in Japanese way is not a cultural thing when you hunt whale far away from Japan.
And I am not asking if the core of anti-whale’s argument is racist;it is not, I agree.
I am asking if you don’t feel that anti-whaling and its public opinion are partly motivated by cultural imperialism or even racism considering the fact that the comment section is full of “personal” hate speech against Japan and the Japanese in general.
john k said
Ponta
Being far or near is a time based thing.
Could fishermen travel far distances many hundreds of years ago and still have fresh fish?.
Which came first, eating fish locally or eating fish from far flung shores?
If it is local, it is cultural. If it is far, it cannot be.
If today i have to go thousands of miles for my fish, such as Tuna in the Philippines, does it make it non-Japanese?
Which came first, eating tuna as sushi, or travelling 1000s of miles to get it? If you didn’t know it was there why “hunt” for it….cant get it locally.
So, why go 1000s of miles for whale meat? Were whales caught locally by local fisherman many hundreds of years ago?
If you don’t understand the difference, which came first, the computer or the internet…it is time based!
I dont profess to understand the general public, clearly my reasoning above demonstrates that!
ponta said
Something similar to sushi now began in the 18000,but Sushi as you eat now spread after the world war Ⅱ. （Google 寿司の歴史）
According to Japan whaling association(日本捕鯨協会） in 1606 whaling began in Chiba, Japan.
(Google 捕鯨の歴史）
In both cases, of course the local used the materials from the shore, and in both cases—Sushi and whale dishes— the Japanese ships now go fishing or hunting far from Japan. In my opinion, eating whale meat and sushi are cultural things, in your opinion one is a cultural thing, another is not. We can agree to disagree.
You don’t have to “understand” the general public to answer the question if you don’t “feel” the racist and/or cultural imperialistic motivation behind it, when the comments about the whaling, which is done by many countries, are full of hate speech against the Japanese in general.
I for one feel it. So though I don’t think pro-whaling argument that anti-whaling is
“based on” racist is valid, I am very sympathetic to the contention that it is at least partly “motivated” by such bias and negative feelings.
Aki said
Just for information. Whales had been caught locally by local fisherman in Japan. I think it is almost common knowledge among Japanese.
From the Haru-no-tsuji ruin of a Yayoi village (300 BC-AD 300) in Iki Island, knives, swords and spindles made of whale bones have been excavated. In Nara period (8th century), whales and whaling were called Isana (勇魚) and Isana-tori (勇魚採り), respectively. These terms can be seen in Manyoshu (万葉集), a poetry anthology compiled around 759.
In Muromachi period (14-16th century), there is a record that the 13th Shogun of the Ashikaga Shogunate, Asikaga Yoshiteru, tried whale meat in the residence of his retainer in 1561. Also, Lord of Tosa (present Kochi prefecture) sent a whole whale to Osaka as a gift to Toyotomi Hideyoshi in 1591.
In early Edo period (17th century), a systematic whaling technique was developed by the fishermen in Taiji of Kii province (present Wakayama prefecture). That technique was transfered to coastal areas of all over Japan during Edo period.
You can see how whales were caught at the time in the following scroll. That scroll was made during Edo period and being kept in Taiji Whale Museum.
http://www.town.taiji.wakayama.jp/kankou/image036.jpg
john k said
Aki
Many thanks for the info, i’ll have a good read of it.
Clearly based upon such evidence, it is cultural.
Debate closed!
mac said
Where does “Japan”, whoever or whatever that is, stand on vivisection/animal testing in general? I wonder if the same hoo-ha would be made if it just whaled in its own waters?
Putting aside the approximately 1,000 years when eating red meat was ‘officially’ banned in Japan by the Buddhist, the Japan Vegetarian Society was only founded in 2001, whereas the British Vegetarian Society was formed in 1847. Whale meat was excluded from the ban as it was seen to be a fish, or ‘brave fish’ to be closer to the original, and fish were allowed. Even Buddhist abbots I have spoken to eat fish. This suggests to me that the animal rights movement is still not well developed within Japan and take some time.
Whether something is ‘cultural’ or not does not necessarily sanction it. Humanity is rapidly moving from a racial or nationalist point of view into a internationalist point of view. Largely through the environmental movement, we are now entirely aware of our interdependency. Largely through the internet humanity is working out how to define what are acceptable and unacceptable in this new international culture. The power of ideas, memes, traveling faster than ever before; but we are also having to face the new imperialists, the corporate, money-making interests.
The whaling debate has a symbolic value because it is an issue, a slaughter, happening in international waters where one corporate power is seeking to extend its imperial interests and assert without conscience the power of life and death over another species. This old world, financially exploitative imperialism is clashing at the same time with growing voices from the new world that believes all sentient beings, starting with the most evolved, have rights.
There is no need for more meat, there is a very real environmental need for us to consume less meat and the developed nations to set an example. Its not sustainable.
There are a bunch of Spaniards that think it is cultural to throw a goat out of a church tower …
camphortree said
Mac said,
“the Japan Vegetarian Society was only founded in 2001, whereas the British Vegetarian Society was formed in 1847.”
My holy friend, let me congratulate you on the one hundred fifty four year seniority of the King’s men’s Vegetarian Society. I tuely believe that the significance of the difference should be recognized with awe! With all my respect let me add one fact: prior to the year of 1847, the majority of Japanese were near plant eaters with occasional exceptions. They could not bother to establish another vegetarian society in a hurry.
Mac said,
“There is no need for more meat, there is a very real environmental need for us to consume less meat and the developed nations to set an example.”
To my puzzelment modern Japanese are exercising one of the healthiest diets with the effects of one of the longest life spans on earth. May be even the developed nations could learn from each other.
HHHH said
Mac, if you read Japanese, this page about 生類憐れみの令 in Wikipedia is a good reading.
http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%94%9F%E9%A1%9E%E6%86%90%E3%82%8C%E3%81%BF%E3%81%AE%E4%BB%A4
In 1687, Tokugawa Tsunayoshi prohibited eating fish and birds as well as caws, pigs, dogs which had been prohibited earlier, to protect the lives of all animals.
In 1688, some woodcutters were punished because they cut trees on which a bird had made its nest.
The penalty for killing animals was in most cases death.
As soon as the shogun died, the law was repealed, which was considered as a disaster by most of the Japanese at that time.
So much of animal right movement history in Japan.
Dee said
I am asking if you don’t feel that anti-whaling and its public opinion are partly motivated by cultural imperialism or even racism considering the fact that the comment section is full of “personal” hate speech against Japan and the Japanese in general.
I’ll take a stab at this.
My take is that this is an open attempt at cultural “imperialism”.
Whaling and fishing is as much a part of the culture of the people living on the Japanese archipelago, as it is to the Inuits living on the pack ice in Alaska or Greenland. Just as hunting deer and wild pigs are to many Western cultures.
Many of the anti-whaling supporters aren’t being racist, although the possibility certainly exists on an individual basis, as they are displaying undue irrationality on the subject.
So what if Japanese whalers want to be able to hunt and manage whale stocks which aren’t endangered, good for them.
The whalers request (unlike the responses of the majority of the anti-whaling supporters) were not only polite and reasonable, the whalers approach to the subject actually smacks of responsible foresight.
The hyperbolic rhetoric the anti-whaling supporters are engaging in may pose a far greater danger than any Japanese whaler ever could.
This is the type of rhetoric which leads one group of people to attempt impressing undue restraints upon other groups of people.
So in conclusion, yes the anti-whaling supporters are attempting to impose their own form of “cultural imperialism”.
ampontan said
Not about Japan, but here is an excellent, excellent article in the Economist about people and food throughout history, specifically hunter/gatherers vs. farmers.
Long, but worth the time.
john k said
Dee
Interesting.
Would you not then say that the antithesis of that argument is that the pro-whaling supporters are also trying to impose their own form of “cultural imperialism”..?
If so, why is one side of the argument acceptable, and the other not?
Dee said
Would you not then say that the antithesis of that argument is that the pro-whaling supporters are also trying to impose their own form of “cultural imperialism”..?
If so, why is one side of the argument acceptable, and the other not?
Certainly, but everything depends on the context of the discussion, as well as the responses to the discussion.
The pro-whalers aren’t insisting that everyone be forced to eat a pound of Japanese whale blubber every day, and if refused then they should enjoy their nuking.
So long as the whale populations aren’t stressed to the point of extinction, and in the long run can be managed to the point that they flourish, that’s what should matter to both parties.
If the greens are concerned about whale populations, then they should find a way to work with the Japanese whalers to craft an alternative or compromise.
Otherwise they shouldn’t be too shocked if poaching continues.
bender said
Would you not then say that the antithesis of that argument is that the pro-whaling supporters are also trying to impose their own form of “cultural imperialism”..?
If so, why is one side of the argument acceptable, and the other not?
Yawn…
mac said
My goodness, I never thought I’d see the day that I argreed with Bender on something.
If so, why is one side of the argument acceptable, and the other not?
Yawn … for god’s sake man, take a position in life and defend it.
Oh, did I tell you … once we whacked Japan and win over whaling we are going to start next on cigarette smoking. You can forget compassion for all sentient beings unless it includes the next human one to walk out of the Onsen into a stinky changing or waiting room.
“You are what you eat” includes whoever’s second hand smoke your are forced to breath too. We are talking about pretty much the same people here, aren’t we? Its all just about fighting ignorance really. Ignorance of the impact one’s ignorances are having on other living, feeling beings … all caught up in a mad rush for money.
Cigarette companies were not set up as charities, neither were industrial whaling ships.
Bruce Smith said
Mac – You are joking about the cigarette thing right ?
Happy New Year to all !
mac said
re Smoking …
New York, London, Dublin already … Paris and Berlin just fell … it will be Tokyo next one as soon as we can work out a connection between the Japanese cigarette industry, not apologising for WWII, comfort women and whaling.
(Right after hell freezing over).
ampontan said
Mac: You might find the Japan Tobacco and Salt Museum, with a link on the right, to be an interesting website destination. Use the search engine at the bottom of the left sidebar, and you’ll turn up my post on it.
bender said
Don’t leave out !!!! The capital of the Federation of Planets.
bender said
Here’s the link: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/04/22/CMGK8OSSAA1.DTL
mac said
… and Sydney. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/3738534.stm
We have the Nazi Whale Liberation Front on our side already. Perhaps I can request governmental funding, via Nippon Geirui Kenkyūsho, to demonstrate the direct cause between excessive smoking after the onsen and whale hunting … as long as I promise to go and find some dinner for them.
Look, it is proven. Japan is the only country where it happens.
john k said
Dee
You made some very interesting points in #27:
“…The pro-whalers aren’t insisting that everyone be forced to eat a pound of Japanese whale blubber every day,..”
True, but their stance in voicing their opinion, is the very same in which those against it are also doing; the number of voices involved is irrelevant. So I see the same stance and perception by both sides. Therefore, who is “more right”..?
“.…So long as the whale populations aren’t stressed to the point of extinction, and in the long run can be managed to the point that they flourish, that’s what should matter to both parties…”
Couldn’t agree more. But the problem is finding a consensus opinion on the issue. Almost all research these days is being funding by someone with a vested interest in the results…..or you could just ignore such obvious bias and say “yawn”.
Just look at the debate on global warming and green houses gases. There is becoming less and less true “independent” research. Hence very hard to know what to truly believed. Whether whales, effect of rising CO2 etc….everyone claims the same thing, regardless which side one is on.
mac said
I see the same stance and perception by both sides
The anti-whaling environmentalist movement is not slaughtering anyone, not breaching international agreements, nor pushing a commercial agenda and it is not consuming natural resources to do so … its an entirely opposite and different stance. One is protecting, the other is exploiting and causing suffering. What are you talking about “everyone claims the same thing”? What is driving environmental destruction and the slaughter of whales?
It is so-called, conscienceless, capitalism exploitation (I’d rather call it international piracy; consume the world, the devil take the last man/whale/barrel of oil!) versus conservatism (perhaps we ought to take a little as we can in case it rains tomorrow and fix the bit we broke first in case it screws up something else).
Thinking about the bigger picture of what we have discussed here recently, its sad but its true to say that there is a connection between the issues. It was the Westerners that brought tobacco to japan and the same Westerners that encouraged meat/beef eating in the C 16th. It was the Western whaling industry that wanted to break Japan open in the C 19th and again encouraged beef/meat industry here (Americans). And it was and has been the Americans since WWII that have been both encouraging and exploiting the meat market/junk food industry in Japan at all level of supply from Kobe cattle grown in California to Spam, Subway and McDonalds.
I think the same is as true about Christianity of those early days of interaction and the consumerism of today. International capital forces screwing with the ordinary people and leaving a trail of destruction behind it. Addict to external forces not internal supplies. I think it is similar trend to the Asian Imperialism of the West encouraging the Asian Imperialism of Japan. Its a real shame that Japan acts like a kid brother to Europe and then America … but it cant last, supply and demand and entropy will call time sooner.
I think like Germany did, Japan has to find itself again post the “re-education” period and take a stand against and away from America. Diet and lifestyle is part of that; something that fits and works within its own means (environment) and is not slavishly copy the abusers it has encountered on the way. Essentially, on the basis of 1,000 experiment, what you are said is that is a “Demi-vegetarian” Buddhism. Compassion toward all living beings. Stick in Shintoism and you have the environmental interest too.
You made a point about “Modern Japan’s” diet being the best in the world. That is entirely inaccurate. General opinion amongst academics is that it in quality and supply peak in the early 70s and has been going down rapidly since (junk food, saturated fats etc). The number of obese and pizza face young Japanese people these days is witness to this. Its following America right down to the cardiac arrest ward.
Environmentalist have zero “vested interests”. What “business” is there is in “ecology” except perhaps a lowly paid job in Friends of the Earth or a few professorships!?! Vested interests generally to big capital interest. And I disagree with you again, ecology is a young science and rapid improving as more data, more researchers, more research is done. Thank God we are out of the days where the petro-chemical industry owned all the earth scientists … those days will be looked back upon like the days the tobacco companies owned all the doctors and suppressed the statistics. (You are probably to young to remember all the adverts).
So these are all very key “Japanese issues” and no wonder they all resonate one way or another with us. They all connected by a thread of the negative influence of the West onto a balance of a fragile but energetic nation (defining nation by a combination of its people and environment). What fits in the USA (eat the prairies … how ever much you can afford … it is your right to consume) does not and cannot in Japan.
You are what you eat. Eat at home.
bender said
Couldn’t agree more. But the problem is finding a consensus opinion on the issue. Almost all research these days is being funding by someone with a vested interest in the results…..or you could just ignore such obvious bias and say “yawn”.
Shitsukoi!
john k said
Mac, the point I was making is thus:
The anti-whalers are pushing their agenda based upon ”findings” (from whatever source) and emotions. Pro-whalers are pushing their agenda on “findings” (from whatever source) and emotion. Their raison d’etre is exactly the same.
“I punch you, you punch me”…however you look at the philosophy by both sides, it is the same.
However, the conclusions you can draw from both sides are of course extreme at best.
If you think environmentalist, et al, have a zero vested interest, and that there is no business interest in ecology, consider this the next time you read a scientific report about the environment.
1) who funded the report?
2) what was the motivation for the report?
3) what is the scope of the report?
The research is not free, it cost and lots. Having reports funded by “interested” parties often by 3rd or 4th hand corporations to avoid being accused of bias. Universities can’t afford to do the research, they get funding from outside sources. The scope can be so narrow that the findings can either prove “nothing” or exactly what you want it to say. Phrases such as “ our findings do not show….” or “…there is no evidence….”
In a very narrow report, such phrases are extremely common. You can have 2 reports that say the exact opposite, with Titles that are almost the identical; and yet their findings are held up against peer scrutiny.
It doesn’t mean that such a thing does or does not exist, it just means that THAT report cannot say one way or another because they didn’t actively go looking for it or could not find “it”, or of course the contrary. Having a very narrow scope can only prove or otherwise “that scope”, nothing else, no matter how close it may “appear”.
I have been involved in academia, writing reports, industrial research, reviewing reports etc for the best part of 20 years, as part of my job. My own PhD is so narrow in its description that you’d be lucky to slide “a wafer thin mint” between the sides of the “arguments”.
So these large organisations may no longer own the earth sciences, but the research being conducted “independently” is still being funded by interested parties. There is very much a real business in ecology, directly or indirectly. If you don’t believe so…then I assume you believe that WMDs exist…who funded that report for the US Govt. by the US agency? QED.
Being “persistent”, one hopes to find the truth…..
bender said
Being “persistent”, one hopes to find the truth…..
The truth is out there.
john k said
so says Mulder…
mac said
John K
… the anti-whalers or the environmentally conservative are not trying to make money or recoup their considerable financial investments.
That is the different … and how big a difference it is. And the scale of difference is huge.
I could say much more about the academic system but you are probably more au fait with it than I am. What is it they say, “never trust a scientist over 24 and under 65 because are too afraid of losing their job or tenureship”? I cannot remember the exact quote.
Science is bought and paid for in more than the obvious manner. Again the scale of difference between the pro-ecology science and that is in the interest of industrial exploitation is so unimaginably massive; a mouse with a feather in its hand facing up against a full body armour crack-headed elephant.
john k said
Mac:
“… the anti-whalers or the environmentally conservative are not trying to make money or recoup their considerable financial investments.”
I am not assuming the anti-whalers or pro-whalers are trying to make money. I’m just trying to establish the philosophy behind their rationale. If money surfaces as the basis for the argument, then to me that is a “detail” (a result of) not the foundation. Since to me, their MO is the same for both. We obviously agree to differ on the intent.
“…“never trust a scientist over 24 and under 65 because are too afraid of losing their job or tenureship”?…”
Never hear of that one. But (I am guessing here based on the info I know), this is more true of American Academics than British ones. Which is one reason why you will often see many names on papers presented by American Academics. If they have not “published” much in the academic year, they may well lose their job, as you suggest. So they ‘ask about’ of their colleagues if their name can be put onto others research…or, as is have seen plenty of evidence of, papers published which are half-baked, ie incomplete. Just to show they “publish”, and hence justify their funding….so you’re probably right. Luckily I’m not a professor or employed full-time by Universities…only as a visiting lecturer (sometimes…) to help post-grad student make the leap from theory to practice.
mac said
Bloody hell. Even Turkey fallen now and is about to introduce smoking bans … http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7171245.stm
No wonder the Nikkei closed down 616.37 points. Those salarymen will be stubbing out their last Genghis Khan on their whale fin place mats by … oh, sometime sooner than they realise.