MajideSaiaku
tsuyaku o tsukete kudasai
- 19 Jan 2005
- 1,381
- 59
Aussi_Chick said:i just feel that the governments aren't listening, the polititians are too busy giving themselves payrises rather than thinking about the welfare of the planet.
Can't see why a missing consensus among IWC members hinders me from stating the obvious & I repeat: Stock structure can be easily researched by genetic sampling (much easier & more efficient than killing, BTW), no need to kill.isanatori said:Hi,
No. As there is no consensus in the IWC Scientific Committee whether the results from Japanese research whaling programmes could be obtained without killing whales, you can not say that.
You mean, because they worked together before, the one is unable to conduct a study of different genes than the other, working with a different team?Not as much independent as you may think. First, Scott Baker and Steve Palumbi work together very often. Second, Baker is heavily funded by IFAW...that doesn't sound very "independant" to me.
Interesting that you want to deny scientists the right to publicise a political opinion (freedom of speech?).Baker should stick to scientific arguments and avoid to take political positions such as this one : " Now, it seems Japan plans to resume hunting of both species in defiance of the 1986 moratorium on commercial whaling and the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary". Special permits issued as designated in article VIII of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, are not affected by the 1982 moratorium and the sanctuaries. Baker cannot ignore this, and is just saying the same misleading stuff as Greenpeace, IFAW and co.
Well, since you mentioned this before your response to Sharing it seemed that you identified my arguments in some way with him.I never mixed up Palumbi and Watson. In my previous message, I just answered both to you and Sharing the Earth.
& as the subsequent genetic studies suggest, quite rightfully so.In 1990, although the Scientific Committee gave an estimate of 760.000 Antarctic Minke whales, the IWC, controlled by anti-whaling countries, decided to prolong the moratorium ad eternam.
Bossel said:Can't see why a missing consensus among IWC members hinders me from stating the obvious & I repeat: Stock structure can be easily researched by genetic sampling (much easier & more efficient than killing, BTW), no need to kill.
Bossel said:You mean, because they worked together before, the one is unable to conduct a study of different genes than the other, working with a different team?
IFAW funded? The University of Auckland then is unable to produce valid research results?
Bossel said:Interesting that you want to deny scientists the right to publicise a political opinion (freedom of speech?).
Since Japanese whaling can hardly be called scientific, it seems a correct conclusion that the restart of hunting humpbacks & fin whales would be in disagreement with the moratorium.
Bossel said:& as the subsequent genetic studies suggest, quite rightfully so.
Just like Palumbi & Baker.isanatori said:which means people who know a lot more than us on the biology of whales.
With a little reasoning of your own you can very well say that.The fact that there is no consensus among these specialists of whales about the possibility to earn the same data (as the Japanese research whaling programmes) without killing, you can hardly say that "stock structure can be easily researched by genetic sampling" and without killing.
Oh man, now I'm sure that you're only spreading pro-whaling propaganda.If it was so, I wonder why nobody has yet started to do non-lethal research on whales in Antarctic waters. (some clues : it is not feasible ; it would cost a lot of money and wouldn't make profit ; it would demonstrate that there are enough Antarctic Minke whales to allow some managed whaling under the Revised Management Procedure)
Or maybe they simply have the same field of research & hence collaborate once in a while on overlapping projects.No I mean that the fact they work (present, not past) often together, may have an influence on their works.
Thanks for the link, but this does not prove that Baker is IFAW-funded. It only shows that he got a grant for one part (maintenance of the reference data set) of one particular project (Witness for the Whales). The data coming from that project are still open for verification (& as I said, any falsification should be fairly easy to prove).Yes, Baker is IFAW funded. See here : http://130.216.185.96/page/wftw/intro#FUNDS.
Baker works for the UoA, Witness for the Whales is a service by the UoA School of Biological Sciences. His research results are published on their website. Er...I don't mean that the University of Auckland is unable to produce valid research results, just Baker.
& obviously Baker's. How is it misleading when he states the obvious?Whether Japanese whaling programmes can be called scientific or not, is just your opinion.
Oh well, what he can or can't is up to him.Baker cannot ignore that.
Without reasons? Just for fun? Obviously the decision was quite correct.Anyway, these studies were not available in 1990 when the IWC decided to prolong the moratorium without reasons.
I think, this sounds very logical. It would be a bit strange if the anti-whaling camp were in support of whaling.The fact is that the anti-whaling camp is against all whaling
Obviously, that depends on how you see it.and lacks any good scientific reason for this.
Er..., you know that there actually are endangered whale species?Instead, it just misleads the public opinion with informations that are untrue (whales are going to get extinct, whaling is not sustainable, etc.).
But isn't that a good thing, according to you? Just a few lines before that you bemoaned the lack of profit in non-killing research.Whales have become a good symbol to make money under the name of the so called "protection of the environment".
Bossel said:Oh man, now I'm sure that you're only spreading pro-whaling propaganda.
Bossel said:With a little reasoning of your own you can very well say that [stock structure can be easily researched by genetic sampling" and without killing].
Bossel said:"not feasible": Crap! Actually, it's the most feasible method.
"cost a lot of money": Crap! Every scientific research costs money, but genetic sampling is surely much cheaper than hunting, killing & transporting the whales back to Japan. It's even cheaper than any useful photo-ID program.
Bossel said:Without reasons? Just for fun? Obviously the decision was quite correct.
Bossel said:& obviously Baker's. How is it misleading when he states the obvious?
Bossel said:Er..., you know that there actually are endangered whale species?
Am I? Some examples, please!isanatori said:However, my opinion is that obviously you are only spreading anti-whaling propaganda.
Er..., just eg., consider the size of ships, crews & the necessary equipment (& duration of sea voyage, since hunting & hauling the whales aboard takes some time) in comparison to the small boats & crew needed for biopsy sampling.I would be very pleased if you could explain me in detail your reasoning, as it is not so clear to me. Thank you in advance.
If you were better informed it should be to you as well. How do you know nobody does?Then, if it is so easy and so cheap, why is that nobody has tried to undertake such studies in Antarctic waters. I'm sure that it is "obvious" to you.
Since the data of pre-whaling population were flawed & hence current population dynamics have to be re-evaluated, it seems very obvious. I did not say it was obvious at that time, but it is obvious that it was the right decision.Could you explain me what was the "obviously quite correct" reason to do so at that time?
Ah, I see what you mean by being allowed to have an opinion. You're free to state it as long as it purports the IWC/SC view. Yep, very free, your freedom of speech.But that's not the view of the IWC/SC on the subject.
Bossel said:Ah, I see what you mean by being allowed to have an opinion. You're free to state it as long as it purports the IWC/SC view. Yep, very free, your freedom of speech.
bossel said:Well, don't know which logic you follow, but it seems different from mine. (BTW, there is not only one definition for logic.)
How does your logic of a constant process of evolution explain living fossils?
Evolutionary theory surely didn't change drastically in the last month. But I don't know how old the books which you use are. Punctuated equilibria were introduced as a theory in 1972. Your ideas seem to conform with phyletic gradualism, which is a bit older. But, hey, maybe you're living in the past.
At least in Europe it's widely recognised by now that evolution (ISO speciation) is not necessarily a gradual process.
What you wrote is not only simple, but simplistic. Looks a lot like Social-Darwinism readjusted for justifying the wilful or negligent destruction of species.Reiku said:Ah well, I try to stay away--but I just can't.
Look, it's real simple:
Did I do that? Where?When people start raising the spectre of humanity's extinction to support arguments against hunting
M-W:By the way: There is only one definition for logic, sadly it's often misused or misunderstood.
Both your simplistic view of evolution & attempt at justifying wilful or negligent eradication of species have already been addressed before. Your last post more or less merely repeated what you had written before. I don't have enough time to simply repeat the same argument all over.Reiku said:I love how you failed to comment on the validity of my statements, Bossel.
Logic is an abstract concept & hence completely reliant on the symbols we use to specify it. The one & only correct definition you propose is probably your favoured definition, but surely not the only one.Likewise, you can post as many definitions of the word logic as you please, logic itself is a thing, not the verbal or written symbols we use to represent it, and indeed has only one definition--or to be more accurate: Only one correct definition.
Probably dependent on your one & only correct definition of logic.But I can find no logical basis for that opinion
Reiku said:Is JRef under attack by animal activists?
nurizeko said:Voice, these forums are first and formost about Japan, ...
if these forums are an important part of the animal activist campaign then their not thinking very well.
Animal acivists need to take their debates to political and enviromental sites and forums,...
...not some obscure forum about Japan mainly visitted by J-rockers who couldnt give a **** for the whales and a few Japan ex-pats and frequent visitors.
None of the above groups care about enviromentalism or have the power to change things, were a fringe group of society, and in no way in our current numbers influence any enviromental policy.
And those of us living in Japan live in a country which frankly doesnt care for foreign residents bitching about the enviroment at all.
If your mission apart from a few whaling debates is to actually spread the enviromentalist philosophy, your best bet is to take your well written and engaging opinions to places where they can make a difference.
Its like a war of the worlds scenario, where folk celebrate killing one tripod walker, is it really that big of a victory compaared to the millions upon millions of dead humans and millions upon millions more in line to join them?.
Its like hammering away at a giant metal cube and eventually chipping it.
What you need to do is hit it at a weak spot with a more powerful weapon.
So go forth SVF and make a difference - where it counts.