South Korea has just announced that it is going to recommence whaling after a 26 year moratorium, in its own waters.

http://blogs.wsj.com/korearealtime/2012/07/05/south-koreas-whaling-declaration-sparks-outcry/

This has sparked an international outcry.

Julia Gillard said:

“I’m very disappointed by this announcement by South Korea,”

“We are completely opposed to whaling, there’s no excuse for scientific whaling.”

Tony Abbott expressed similar sentiments.

But is this really something that Australia or the international community should be concerned about?

It seems to me that once again we’ve got our priorities in a pickle. If Gillard, Abbott and many others around the world are really environmentally conscious, then they shouldn’t be too worried about a bit of whaling conducted by Korea in its own maritime territory, but should be very concerned about things like population growth, peak oil and global sustainability instead...... all of which they pay very little if any attention to!

I expect that most respondents here will concur with Gillard and denounce this new whaling program, yes?

Ludy,

It will be no surprise to you that there are some people in Australia that would not agree with Gillard on any subject, under any circumstances at any time, except “let’s have an election”.

As far as whaling is concerned the problem as always, has been created by prohibition. If you want to increase the appeal of something, if you want to make it more valuable to some and if you want to create a reaction, all you have to do is a prohibition.

Some cultures have values, historical cuisine and preferences that may be different to ours. All we have to do is tell them that regardless of their sovereign rights that must stop eating whale meat.

It won’t be long before the UN is influenced by other cultures to extent that you will be told you can’t have a beer, eat meat or have prawns for Christmas lunch.

What it is we seek to avoid we create. The anti-thingies of this world need to get a life and mind their freekin’ business

This is a case of a 'little boy' South Korea, wanting to be seen as a 'big man'. Its not about whales, its more about being seen on the world stage, wanting something, they may 'compromise' in the end if they get something in return.

"but(we) should be very concerned about things like population growth, peak oil and global sustainability instead...... all of which they(we) pay very little if any attention to!"
This is true ludwig, but it should not be an excuse to cop out with "then they (we) shouldn’t be too worried about a bit of whaling conducted by Korea in its own maritime territory,"

I am for whaling, by Korea or anyone else.

It is a food resourse that should be used as long as it is sustainable.

What about the poor little krill? Whales devour millions of them, eaten alive, and nobody cares. Its a bit like people wanting to protect Kangaroos because they are big and easily seen, but never give a thought to the small mansupials that are difficult to see.

There are plenty of other fish species that need protection.

Ludwig is right, reduce the world people population and you cut down on food demand.

"It is a food resourse that should be used as long as it is sustainable."
Everything on the planet is merely put here for mans exploitation. How about a bit of self regulation, the whalers can tell us when enough is enough.
"What about the poor little krill?" What about the poor little krill. Is this a joke comment or a total misunderstanding of ecology.
"There are plenty of other fish species that need protection." What has that got to do with protecting whales? By the way there are a hand full of Siberian tigers left another food resource that needs exploiting.

<< It is a food resourse that should be used as long as it is sustainable. >>

Agreed Banjo. But it is not the total bottom line.

Humans have been a food resource for other humans in days gone by. They could be harvested sustainably, but of course the very thought is simply preposterous. Similarly, the thought of sustainably harvesting koalas, lions, elephants and many other animals is unthinkable.

But I would not consider whales to be among these. The more abundant and ecologically secure species such as the minke whale, that is. Not including the rarer ones.

Mmmmm, yummy, Soylent Green?

I totally agree with you SPINDOC - often we Australians seek to mind everybody else's business but our own.

Sure we're a big country in terms of the sheer size of our land mass, but in most other ways, we simply have little real influence. And what influence we do possess, it's certainly not commensurate with the size of that land mass.

Compared to the economic and manufacturing dynamism of South Korea we're pretty impotent I reckon. Gosh, we can't even enforce and protect our own borders - we've virtually No manufacturing base at all. And most other countries in our region laugh at us, with our constant meddling in their affairs.

It's my humble opinion we should first, put our collective head(s) down, and work at fixing all our ills. And those ills, to which I refer, they're (sadly) legion in number.

AND as SPINDOC says, mind our own 'freakin' business first !

Gillard will have to be careful where she goes swimming from now on, so maybe her opposition to whaling has a personal basis.

no one has ever been able to put up a logical reason why its okay for our first people to eat roo while Japanese are demonised for eating whale meat.

In a series of auctions this year, the japanese government organisation that markets whale meat sold only a quarter of the 1200 tonnes of whale hunted last year, leaving 909 tonnes unsold. On top of unsold meat from previous hunts, this brings to 4700 tonnes the total amount of whale stockpiled in Japan.

The failure to sell the whale meat underlines what some environmentalists believe is the strongest and most practical argument against whaling: that not only is it cruel, unethical and ecologically damaging, it is also economically unsustainable.

At a time when Japan's electricity grid is facing blackouts after the Fukushima nuclear disaster last year, industrial refrigerators are preserving hundreds of whale carcasses that no one wants to buy.

95% of Japanese never or rarely eat whale meat According to the Japanese Hamburger Association, Japanese people are 40 times more likely to eat hamburgers than they are to eat whale meat.

Spindoc, thanks for the reminder; I’ve got to see Soylent Green. It’s all about overpopulation, dystopia, chronic food shortages and food made from human corpses. Right up my alley!!

So why have I never seen it? ( :>?

<< It's my humble opinion we should first, put our collective head(s) down, and work at fixing all our ills. And those ills, to which I refer, they're (sadly) legion in number. >>

Yep, o sung wu. Totally!

Ludwig, you say;

<< Spindoc, thanks for the reminder; I’ve got to see Soylent Green. It’s all about overpopulation, dystopia, chronic food shortages and food made from human corpses>>.

No Ludy, its just a very old movie. Nothing real, not a prediction, not a public alarm, not a quasi-religious movement, not a "peak something" statement, just a sci-fi movie, a very old version of AVATAR.

The planet NEEDS a program for animal control. I'm not totally opposed to the killing of anything given it being necessary for protection of the entire ecosystem. We've messed with the ecosystem over the generations through selectively removing various things and due to that we have a responsibility for the protection of it in its entirety.

Having said that, I'll oppose anything that's potentially damaging too. But I think we're all a bit precious over animal killing. Some even get their knickers in a knot over the killing of introduced damaging pest species. Crazy, I know.

Yes Spinny, a very old sci-fi movie that I have somehow managed to never see!

If Paul is correct with his figures about whale meat not selling in Japan then the greens have nothing to worry about.

If is not economical for the whalers then they will stop whaling.

So no need for any big song and dance.

The complete protection of endangered species must
continue for a long time to allow them to recover
from years of extreme overhunting. Even with protection,
some species may not be able to recover.

Every year, the number of people in the world increases,
and so the demand for food rises constantly. This fact
may threaten the survival of whales. If the population
does not level off, people may have to compete with whales
for food in the sea.

Too many people for sure - and such a savage spieces.

I don't know what the answer is.

I do remember, however, a school excursion to a whaling station when I was seven. Mum had given me a hankerchief sprinkled in perfume to mask the stench of the flensing deck....and the great carcass of a majestic dead whale lay dead - and all these little humans were buzzing around it hacking pieces off....and i walked over to the water and it wasn't the right colour. It resembled a sea of blood.

Emotive, I know - and unforgettable : (

Lexi and Poirot,
According to paul, the japs may now prefer beef to whale meat so that is good news for both whales and maybe our northern cattlemen.

However krill has been harvested by Japan and Russia, with Russia now discontinued. China entered last year and it is yet to be seen if they will expand their harvest.

As the world population grows, we will be looking closely at all aspects of food supply. Harvesting of Krill and seaweed may be options. Krill may be used for both human consumption and as a food for farmed fish. Seaweed may be taste altered for many uses.

Lexi, you are right, this may have a far more detrimental effect on whales than the whaling of a few countries now.

Let us look at the family planning programmes of both Iran and Thailand and expand on that to other countries of high birthrates and famine susseptable areas so as to restrain world population growth.

It has got me beat why governments and the UN do not do more in relation to family planning. I was surprized at how effective government sponsored programmes are.

Dear Banjo,

1) Family planning is an essential element in population limitation
but according to the experts it's not sufficient in itself.

2) Antinatalism - this strategy involves public policies
intended to discourage births. These policies always
include educational programs aimed at changing social values
and attitudes about family size. The outstanding example
of this strategy is I guess - China's. There is an
official limit of two children per family, but parents
are urged to have only one. Contraception, abortion,
and sterilisation are freely available and local officials
check on families to make sure they don't exceed their
limit. Couples who have only one child receive
financial benefits and preferential treatment in jobs and
housing. Those who have more than two are regarded as
antisocial deviants. No small penalty in a highly
conformist society.

3) Economic improvements - Many of the less developed nations
don't have the means to achieve the rapid economic growth
necessary to raise living standards to the appropriate
level. There is evidence however that a different kind of
economic reform might bring about a lower birth rate.

A fairer distribution of the society's resources.
In other words if people are allowed to enjoy such basics
of life as food, shelter, clothing, health care, education
(especially for women) and a sense that things will get
better in the future, then they tend to voluntarily limit
the size of their families.

The family-planning efforts of many less developed nations,
fail, it seems, because the resources of these societies
are unfairly shared. Typically a tiny elite enjoys a
disproportinate share (and its birth rate drops) but
the mass of the people remain in hopeless poverty (and
maintain high birth rates).

Policies that focus on a sharing of resources rather than
exclusively on economic development that may benefit only
a minorty may be a promising way to reduce global
population growth.

The Japanese are not so crass that they would kill whales for economic considerations, Its all done in the name of "scientific research", can't wait to read the results of the "scientific research". Possibly the Japaneses are trying to prove that if you harpoon a whale, it most likely dies.

I've just come across the following link
which may add some more thoughts to this
discussion:

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4112596.html

Lexi,
I do not know who the 'experts' are that have doubts about the effectiveness of government sponsored family planning.

Both Iran and Thailand have had great success with their programmes, lowering their birthrates from about 6.5 per woman to about 1.7 per woman. Both these countries did it wholeheartedly, with education in all aspects of family planning and providing the means. Apparently couples were able to choose the methods that best suited their need. It was purely by education and the provission of the means.

You can google family planning in Iran and Thailand and get numberous websites and papers outlining their programmes. One particular site I found interesting was this one.

http://opinion.inquirer.net/9489/family-planning-in-thailand-ph

It compares the difference between Thailand and the Phillipines who were similar in population and economies. Thailand sponsored family planning and Phillipines has not. Now there is a vast difference in the populations and the economies.

I certainly am no expert in this but my interest was arroused when I first saw an article about Iran. To me it graphicly illustrated that family planning does work if sponsored strongly by governments.

To me it dispelled the need for draconian methods to reduce birthrates, or at least gave hope that family planning should be tried, so I have endeavoured to inform others when ever I get the opportunity.

If you have any links to the experts that doubt the effectiveness I would like to see what they say.

It really does distress me to see pictures of undernourished kids when I know it can be avoided by education in family planning. Not to mention the deaths and problems young undeveloped girls have from giving birth too young.

I would be interested in your comments when you have researched looked at Iran and Thailand programmes.

http://opinion.inquirer.net/9489/family-planning-in-thailand-ph

Dear Banjo,

Please re-read my previous post.

I did state that family planning is an essential
element in population limitation, but the strategy
is not sufficient in itself.

As we know there are political, religious and
other ideological influences that effect social
attitudes concerning population limitation. The
Catholic Church, which is particularly influential
in South America - where very high birth rates and
grinding poverty are prevalent almost everywhere -
has always opposed the use of contraceptives.
To complicate matters further, some governments
regard high birth rates as essential for their
nations' economic or political strength. Argentina
banned the use of contraceptives a few decades ago as
part of a planned campaign to
double its population as soon as possible
in the supposed interests of economic
development. Childe launched a campaign in the 1980s
for "a significant increase in population," in order to
ensure "national security." Even Peter Costello, here in
Australia was pro increasing our population.

So, yes, family planning is essential - but it needs public
policies to discourage births as well as the other things
that I mentioned earlier.

Lexi,
I disagree wuth the idea that family plannig cannot work alone in reducing the world population. A birthrate of 1.7 per woman is below the replacement level.

The alternative is that world population is allowed to escalate untill we see more and more people suffering from starvation while the UN and other organizations carry out piecemeal operations such as the World Food Programme, which is merely treating the symptions.

I did consider the religous implications and noted that strongly RC countries such as Ireland, Italy and France have birthrate below the replacement level, so apparently they do not abide by their religous doctrine. I do not see that other RC countries will not go the same way if Family planning means are made availabe to them. Of course it would be advantagous if the Vatican altered its stance.

It seems tha Sth Korea is taking up whaling again because their available fish stocks are getting lower, despite what they say about scientific research. Who are we to deny them of a traditional source of food because it is against our wishes. There are many foods that we would not contemplate but others regularly consume.

The simple fact is that, unless action is taken to reduce populations in countries that are subject to famine and high birthrates, the world soon will not be able to feed itself. I have forgotten how many people die now from starvation, but that is set to escalate and more presure is placed on food supplies.

Iran and Thailand have shown the world that populations can be reduced without draconian methods and that economic advantages for both the families and the countries are the result.

Dear Banjo,

We seem to be going round in circles.
I am not disagreeing with you. You just
don't seem to be getting the point that I
am making - so I'll leave you to your opinion.

lexi,
I certainly do get what you are saying.

You, or your 'experts', are saying there is a need to raise the living standards of undeveloped countries before looking at family planning to reduce populations. Or that birthrates will reduce after living standards are raised.

The Thailand evidence is quite contrary to that theory. Thailand has shown that education in family planning and the provission of the means results in lower birthrates and better economic outcomes for both the people and the country. This then enables the government to spend more funds on social policies such as education, health and so on.

If you can point me to the experts that have a different view than that of the Thailand experience, I would appreciate it.

An example of a successful state attempt at population control is China's, 'one child policy' since its inception 30 odd years ago it is estimated it has resulted in a Chinese population some 300m less than what it would have been without the policy. Although the policy has had the desired effect on population it is not without its drawbacks. The desire for a boy has resulted in an increase in abortions, child neglect and abandonment, and even cases of infanticide to female infants. This desire for a boy has seen 114 boys born for every 100 girls, the natural ratio is 105 to 100.
IUDs, sterilization, and abortion (legal in China) are China's most popular forms of birth control, over the past few years, China has provided more education and support for alternative birth control methods. China provides economic benefits to one child families.
With an aging population because of a low birth rate over a long period of time, the number of births per woman in China is 1.7, compared to the US at 2.1. Couple this with the fact that now there are millions of sibling-less people in China who are now young adults in or nearing their child-bearing years, a special provision allows millions of couples to have two children legally. If a couple is composed of two people without siblings, then the government will allow them to have two children of their own, without any economic penalty, thus preventing a dramatic population decrease.Something India should think about.

Paul,
I have not deeply looked into Chaina's 'one chilf policy' but it is obvious what the intentions are and that it works in reducing population. However there are enough horror stories coming out to make me shudder. Stories of late term abortions and forced sterilizations, maybe ordered by over zealous local officials does little to attract support.

The Iran and Thailand policies do not require tough laws, but rely entirely on education and the government providing the contraception means. It has worked very successfully.

I would rather see our overseas aid go toward family planning programmes than simply providing food relief to areas of need.

The result is less pressure on food supplies, so there is less demand for bush meat, whale meat and other species that need protection.

Dear Banjo,

No. That is not what I am saying at all.

Let me repeat myself once again.

In general, the nations of the world are trying
to control their population growth through one or
more of - three strategies: 1) Family Planning.
2) Antinatalism (that is, anti-birth policies.
And 3) Economic Improvements.

Family planning is an essential element in population
limitation but the strategy is not sufficient in itself.

Please do not put your words into my mouth.

Well it does appear that Family planning in poor countries has not been getting enough attention for the past 20 years.

It is hoped that this will be rectified in a few days time, at least on a UN level. Interesting to see the outcome of this meeting.

http://news.yahoo.com/un-aims-put-family-planning-back-radar-143252020.html