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.

“…“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.

… 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.

The truth is out there.

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…..

Shitsukoi!

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.

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.

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.