I generally see that rational applied to whaling only when discussing indigenous populations such as the Inuit in Alaska. They are whaling in small boats and canoes using traditional techniques. Japan’s excuse for whaling is “scientific study.” I don’t think they are claiming to whale for cultural reasons, nor are they whaling for subsistence, which is allowed under international law.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aboriginal_whaling

No, they're explicitly dropping the scientific study excuse, and using culture now. They're also only going to be whaling in their economic exclusion zone now, rather than going potentially thousands of miles.

Not exactly meaningful when talking about highly migratory species!

And way less fun for making edgy TV shows about stopping them.

No,they used to claim science, but the revent announcement is explicitly about it not being for research any more, and the ban on selling whale meat is also lifted.

Your argument doesn’t make more sense that saying we should farm crops like centuries before. The cultural part is about eating whale meat, not how to got it.

Certainly the act of whaling itself is also very cultural?

No, because they are free to mix and match from their cultural heritage, and keep some parts while developing others (and adding new stuff to it).

When we're talking about "cultural heritage", we mean respecting their choices regarding their cultural heritage (including abandoning parts of it). Not that they should absolutely stick to older practices on every aspect of life.

A few hundred years ago, men in many countries were allowed to beat their wives and children with few restrictions. Need I also mention that slavery and child labor were legal?

Historical legacy is absolutely no rationale for continuing to cause needless suffering in intelligent beings.

Well , by that logic any and all meat has to be banned.

That is unachievable at the moment.

It's saddening, that people willingly participate in extinction of a species however... that is what whaling has become after all.

Extinction is a bit too strong of a word here - the combined minke whale population (AFAIK, minkes in the northern and southern hemisphere are considered separate species) is numbered in the hundreds of thousands; Japan kills a few hundred a year, last year Norway caught 342.

Full disclosure - Norwegian, living in an area where whaling has been performed for hundreds of years, currently have about 12-15 pounds of whale meat in the freezer.

What is the texture and taste like (since whales are mammals) ? Does it have fat marbling like beef/pork ?

That depends on where it is cut from, but overall whale meat is very dark - almost black - and pretty lean, marbling being rare.

If you don’t overcook it, it is extremely tender, but quickly -very quickly- turns rubber-y if it spends too long in the frying pan. You can eat it raw - with a spoon, almost.

Taste is slightly liver-y, and if the meat is old it can take on a cod liver oil-like taste which is rather unpleasant.

I mostly eat it like beef (meat room-tempered, nutmeg-browned butter in the frying pan, meat in pan thirty seconds either side to get a nice surface, then pull aside to rest for a few minutes prior to eating) or as a stew - onions, black pepper, whatever mushrooms I can find, whale meat diced, fry for a short while, add copious amounts of heavy cream, simmer until potatoes are done, yumyum.

Who is to say what is "needless"?

Dictionary does a pretty good job. "Not Needed. Unnecessary."

There's a pretty valid point to be made that you don't NEED to eat whale meat. Or Cow meat. Or any meat really. There are economically available options in most areas that would allow for a nutritionally balanced, vegetarian (possibly vegan) diet.

This is specifically true about a developed nation like Japan.

There's counterpoints to be made (not all farm land is suitable for crop farming, so using it for husbandry is valuable; a complete one day flip without a slow phase out of meat would be economically devastating; freedom to eat animals is my right, etc) but you can't really say you NEED to do it. Science and nutrition doesn't back that up, and the economics are hazy at best.

>There's a pretty valid point to be made that you don't NEED to eat whale meat. Or Cow meat. Or any meat really. There are economically available options in most areas that would allow for a nutritionally balanced, vegetarian (possibly vegan) diet.

With that sense of "need" you also don't need to be on HN, or on the internet. Heck, you don't need clothes if you live in a warm climate, and neither do you need 99% of your processions (and surely not in that quality).

"Need" is not much of an argument.

People need food, and water so it is perfectly valid argument. Just not for slaughtering whales.

If by "need", you mean "need to survive", you could survive your entire life just by drinking human milk. By not eating plants, you'd be improving animal welfare even more, since agriculture kills many more animals than grazing-based animal husbandry (think all the pests that are eliminated: the rodents, insects, etc.)

I guess different between cow and whale is one is hunting and one is not. But then we have general fishing. Still muddy water.

Yeah I don't agree even a little bit with Japanese whaling policy but I don't think it's fair to dismiss any argument involving the preservation of culture with "well, why don't you live like your ancestors from 1000 years ago?"

will probably get down voted for this but cannibalism was part of some cultures.....just saying, things change.

The "tradition" argument is interesting: We'll keep on doing this, because we've been doing it for a while, so let's not consider whether it's appropriate.

That cliché argument is used not only by the Japanese to defend whale hunting but to any kind of violence towards all non-human animals.

Things change. Things need to change.

>The "tradition" argument is interesting: We'll keep on doing this, because we've been doing it for a while, so let's not consider whether it's appropriate.

No, it's more like:

"We do this for a long time, and we consider this part of who we are, and we like it, and want to keep doing it. We're not idiots to just do it because we did it in the past, and in fact, we have opted to drop tons of things that we did in the past that we don't like anymore, we're not stuck like that".

So why even argue that? Why not just say "I like whale meat"? I hate this "it's a tradition" bullshit. Just say it, stop hiding behind traditions.

Because they don't just like it like animals like stuff.

They like it as meat, but they also like the parts of their culture associated with it.

The same way an American would like the turkey AND the thanksgiving dinner, and would like to continue having both, and not just because of turkey meat, but as a combo.

So would slavery similarly be more justifiable if it was also done not only because slave owners liked it but because it was part of American culture?

Yes. That's also part of how it was justified back in the day. Or do you think that those practicing it thought it wasn't justified as they were doing it?

The fact that people have now changed their minds on that particular matter doesn't mean that anything people haven't changed their minds but consider tradition is equally wrong.

Or that there's some law-of-nature-style "right and wrong" aside what a culture deems as such. For all our modern posturing, if we were merely born 200 years ago in the US, heck, not even the South, we would statistically be far more likely to be in favor than against the practice (and still be considered perfectly "modern" for those times).

> The fact that people have now changed their minds on that particular matter doesn't mean that anything people haven't changed their minds but consider tradition is equally wrong.

No, but it does mean that tradition can be an obstacle for considering the rightness of an action.

> Or that there's some law-of-nature-style "right and wrong" aside what a culture deems as such.

Agreed. But if we assume some basic principles (e.g. like preventable pain and suffering should be avoided or human existence is good or whatever), then we can question whether something is right according to those principles.

Because it _is_ a tradition. They don't actually eat a whole lot of whale meat like they used to do. There's more supply for whale meat than there is demand.

The reason the whaling industry still exists is because it receives government support for being a "protected tradition".

Also, that is the real tragedy, and I hate the fact that the journalists often miss it: criticising people for killing sensing, feeling animals is hypocritical because we do the same thing for cattle, pigs, sheep and chicken. (Argument for whales being rare species are nonsensical because the minke whales that are being hunted aren't that rare.) What's horrible is killing sensing, feeling animals for no good reason.

To repeat one is raising them to be eaten. The other not. We do not eat elephant ...

Still fishing is a general hard field.

In my experience, the tradition argument doesn’t carry too much weight in Norway - local sentiment (I live within spitting distance of three whaling vessels’ home port) is more that whale meat is tasty (and, historically, much more accessible than other meats, as dairy farming is somewhat of an extreme sport on these small islands we call home) and also, whaling is more profitable than most other forms of marine harvesting, never (to the best of my knowledge) having received subsidies &c - it is commercially viable.

Hm but it depends whether there is a victim involved or not IMHO

Sure, but one can say that for eating burgers too.

Exactly (if the burger is made of animal flesh, that is; but fortunately there are many other ways of making burgers).

Yeah, just not real or tasty ones.

I'm cooking and eating burgers often, and they smell and taste quite real (as opposed to imaginary burgers made out of air).

Have you yourself tried a non-flesh burger, and did you genuinely find it bad? Was it from a shop or a cafe or was it homemade? Or do you have a dogmatic belief that there has to be real suffering and murder for a burger to be real?

It appears to be an issue with expectations for some people (including me). "Burger" is associated with a certain flavor, texture and appearance, so when I eat a veggie burger my subconsciousness is disappointed because it's too different. The veggie burger becomes a worse version of a regular burger rather than an independent dish. This is the main reason why I dislike so many "vegetarian alternative" dishes on our kitchen's menu like chili sin carne, while some "standalone" vegetarian dishes are among my favorites like pasta with spinach, tomato and feta in cream sauce.

I hope artificial meat will be introduced as a 'luxury' product and replace mass-produced fast food ground beef after it is well established as a genuine alternative and not some inferior knock-off like artificial cheese.

> The veggie burger becomes a worse version of a regular burger rather than an independent dish.

I can understand why some people can be put off by the taste. Having previously eaten non-human animals, I can say that I prefer the taste of veggie burgers and sausages, although most vegan cheese tastes absolutely disgusting (especially the ones pretending to be parmesan). But I really, really wish that more of us would be willing to accept a reduction in the tastiness of certain dishes to help prevent antibiotics resistance, non-human animal suffering, climate breakdown, dead zones and starvation.

And other times I really can't tell the difference, and to be honest it kind of scares me. Some brands go so far as to make the minced "meat" look red and bloody[0]. Then, I have to take someone's word that this thing that really looks like a shrimp and is all crunchy really isn't a shrimp[1]. It's like a whole new art form.

[0]: https://www.naturli-foods.dk/produkter/aertefars/

[1]: http://vegetarian-plus.com/product/vegan-shrimp/ (Note: The ones I tried looked more convincing)

I absolutely love this one particular brand (Linda McCartney) of mozzarella-riddled vegetarian burger they sell in the UK. I'm a lifelong meat eater, past redemption really, but my wife is vegetarian and introduced me to them.

I would rather eat these textured soya protein burgers than even the best beef burger I've ever had. They are that good.

Also, upvoted because a difference of opinion isn't what down voting is for, surely ?

> I absolutely love this one particular brand (Linda McCartney) of mozzarella-riddled vegetarian burger they sell in the UK.

Yea, and on top of that Linda McCartney products are cheap, free from plastic packaging and pretty much available everywhere.

> Also, upvoted because a difference of opinion isn't what down voting is for, surely ?

I've also wondered about the semantics of the voting arrows (because I'm working on a HN-like[0]). In the guidelines[1] it says how voting/karma works, but not what a vote is supposed to mean. Within the (rarely used) polls[2] the meaning is a bit clearer. Lobsters[3] requires you to pick a reason for down-voting (and "I disagree" is not one of those), which makes its purpose a bit clearer.

[0]: https://gitlab.com/hjek/undebatable

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/newpoll

[3]: https://lobste.rs

Yes, and lots of people do.

And even more don't. Like 5 to 1 more...

many people mindlessly throw plastic into the ocean, do drugs, are obese or in some other way show callous disregard for their own health or the health of the ecosystem they live in, what's the point?

Also Papuans ate their dead instead of burying or incinerating them and that's how they got prion diseases. Not all traditions are good.

And anyways, my understanding is that whaling was not a traditional practice. At least not in the amounts it is done today.

It stemmed from food shortages post-WWII.

This would make too much sense

And my culture has a history of bear baiting and torturing scotsmen. We also made a great game of burning various people who disagreeded with our religion. Cultures have to grow up and recognize a greater good.

You’re equating torturing human beings with killing a limited and arguably sustainable number of almost certainly non-sentient animals. What does that say about your opinion on Scotsmen?