Comments for http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/whaling_many_interested_partie.html http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/whaling_many_interested_partie.html en-gb 30 Thu 27 Nov 2014 05:49:20 GMT+1 A feed of user comments from the page found at http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/whaling_many_interested_partie.html chronophobe http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/whaling_many_interested_partie.html?page=98#comment70 This is a response to some of what was written above, and to some of the comments on the "Whaling: the beginning of the end" post, which has been closed for comments.I am a dedicated carnivore, and have gratefully eaten the flesh of many beasts that run, fly, swim, and, I suppose, crawl. My objections to whaling come not from squeamishness, nor from moral qualms, nor from pragmatism. My objections are aesthetic: commercial whaling is an ugly, unnecessary desecration of magnificent creatures. I have no problem with the Faroese or the Inuit hunts. These are events which both feed and help to culturally define communities. There is a beauty to these hunts which comes from the meaningful interaction of prey and predator. There is a further beauty in the way in which the rituals surrounding them bring people in the community together. Commercial whaling, on the other hand, produces meat not for local consumption, but for supermarkets already laden with the flesh of purpose raised beasts. Why, without pressing need, do we find it necessary to reduce a creature as spectacular as a fin or minke whale to a commodity, a mere novelty meat? As someone who loves to be on the ocean, I can sympathise with the whalers who see their livelihood threatened. But commercial whaling is ultimately just a job, and like any job subject to the vagaries of markets and regulators. Sun 20 Feb 2011 23:17:15 GMT+1 Bertie http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/whaling_many_interested_partie.html?page=97#comment69 Here in Norway most supermarkets sell whale meat, and for those a little squeamish - whale burgers.This is a good article - pointing out that decisions over our natural resources and nature are political more than anything else.(in other words our nature is being managed by money)One issue is what Whales eat, after all if it takes 10 tons of food to produce one ton of meat --- so there is now a very big industry catching krill.Today im going fishing - last week we caught by hand 80 kg of cod. There is a factory near here with a capacity of 15,000 tons per week of fish meal - how much of that fish could we eat?In Denmark there is still a power station burning fish - something like 15,000 tons of fish per year.We have the resources but they are being squandered - there is no sensible overview. Wed 16 Feb 2011 09:15:05 GMT+1 jr4412 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/whaling_many_interested_partie.html?page=95#comment68 bowmanthebard #68."..a questioning, argumentative attitude ... But I am no scholar of religion. Does Islam or Buddhism or whatever have an equivalent?"no scholar either but: all organised mainstream religions are based on authority, ie require deference of the faithful.muslims believe the same core story as Christians and Jews, and, on that level, Buddhism too is all about 'accepting'."..the fact that most "victims" of this practice do not regard themselves as victims ... Female genital mutilation is much much worse.."disappointed, first, why should mutilating the genitals of an infant be acceptable at all? if the 'believer' is of age and wants to be mutilated to join the cult -- fine, but children?? second, imagine some weird cult required all their followers sever the thumb of the right hand of each of their children, would you still argue as you do if those people had grown up and thought themselves not victims? Thu 01 Jul 2010 18:50:23 GMT+1 bowmanthebard http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/whaling_many_interested_partie.html?page=94#comment67 #63 jr4412 wrote:the "Judeo-Christian tradition" is proto-fascist IMO, free and independent thought may be a reaction to it but definitively does not result from it.I'm really speaking of the fusion of ancient Greek and Jewish traditions. There's much more of a questioning, argumentative attitude in the Jewish tradition than in any other. The Woody Allen caricature of a family at supper, squabbling over points of theology as they pass the food around, has some truth in it. JC's overturning of the tables in the temple and confrontation of "scribes and pharisees" is unique as a symbolic act by a religious figurehead as far as I know. It echoes Socrates' constant undermining of the rhetoric of "sophists". But I am no scholar of religion. Does Islam or Buddhism or whatever have an equivalent?other 'horrible corruptions' (and, curiously, absent from your list) are the inherent gender stratification and the ritual (genital) mutilation of infants.I don't think there is as much "stratification" of sexes as we are given to believe, in Islam or anywhere else. Of course there are isolated cases of intimidation and violence on the part of both sexes among "dysfunctional" families. I do hate the segregation of the sexes, but I think there is a bit less of that in the Christian tradition than elsewhere.I used to feel much more strongly than I do now about male circumcision. (I was always appalled by the idea and opposed to it.) What weakened my opposition a bit was the fact that most "victims" of this practice do not regard themselves as victims at all. Many are strongly in favor of it, although that could be what Freud called "reaction formation". Female genital mutilation is much much worse, in my opinion. But of course that is perpetrated by women as well. Witches! Sat 26 Jun 2010 08:17:37 GMT+1 bowmanthebard http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/whaling_many_interested_partie.html?page=92#comment66 #65 jr4412 wrote:we need to manage and maintain an environment clean enough for all (marine) life to prosperI hesitate to use the D word, but that is written by someone in denial.You are in denial of the fact that there is a struggle for existence. It is impossible for "all marine life to prosper" because individual living things prosper at the expense of others, both between and within species.Although you don't use it, here, the B-S term 'biosphere' is a standard way of banishing that constant struggle to the death from one's mind and pretending to oneself that "there's a place for everything and everything in its place" -- i.e. bog-standard anti-Darwinism. Sat 26 Jun 2010 08:00:46 GMT+1 CanadianRockies http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/whaling_many_interested_partie.html?page=91#comment65 #65. jr4412 Vegetarian whales would definitely taste better than carnivorous ones, even if they were atheists. Sat 26 Jun 2010 04:24:44 GMT+1 jr4412 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/whaling_many_interested_partie.html?page=90#comment64 CanadianRockies #64.whales, herring, shrimp, whatever.we need to manage and maintain an environment clean enough for all (marine) life to prosper.(although I've never eaten whale, I'm sure the "Judeo-Christian whales" will taste more sour and unpleasant than the "Buddhist whales" :-)) Sat 26 Jun 2010 03:45:53 GMT+1 CanadianRockies http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/whaling_many_interested_partie.html?page=88#comment63 Well, I guess this means that it should be open season on the Judeo-Christian whales then.Save the Buddhist whales!!! Sat 26 Jun 2010 03:28:06 GMT+1 jr4412 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/whaling_many_interested_partie.html?page=87#comment62 bowmanthebard #62.thanks, it did!fwiw, I agree on points (1) and (2) without reservation; (3) sort of is another facet of (2)."I also attribute the anti-authoritarian attitudes of genuine science and good Western philosophy to the Judeo-Christian tradition."this is where we part company; the "Judeo-Christian tradition" is proto-fascist IMO, free and independent thought may be a reaction to it but definitively does not result from it.other 'horrible corruptions' (and, curiously, absent from your list) are the inherent gender stratification and the ritual (genital) mutilation of infants. Fri 25 Jun 2010 23:45:07 GMT+1 bowmanthebard http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/whaling_many_interested_partie.html?page=85#comment61 #61 jr4412 wrote:you're a 'closet' Christian IMO. isn't it time to 'come out'?I think I may have already come out, by describing myself on numerous occasions as a "Christian atheist".The reason I use the C-word there -- reluctantly -- is that I think retribution and following rules have no place in moral thinking, unlike compassion for one's fellow sentient creatures. That seems to have been the position of JC himself. I also attribute the anti-authoritarian attitudes of genuine science and good Western philosophy to the Judeo-Christian tradition.Alas, the church (and academia -- same thing) have corrupted many of the original ideas horribly. In my opinion, the worst corruptions are (1) the idea that culpability is inherited (i.e. the doctrine of original sin) and (2) the idea that the consequences of our actions matter less than our motivations (i.e. the doctrine of "double effect") and (3) the idea that abstract "justice" matters more than common decency.Hope that helps, my son. Fri 25 Jun 2010 09:18:25 GMT+1 jr4412 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/whaling_many_interested_partie.html?page=84#comment60 bowmanthebard.just read -- and re-read -- your #59.man, you've serious issues; you need to find out whether or not you believe in that invisible friend of theirs after all.you're a 'closet' Christian IMO. isn't it time to 'come out'? Thu 24 Jun 2010 21:15:51 GMT+1 jr4412 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/whaling_many_interested_partie.html?page=83#comment59 bowmanthebard #46."But I do think it is a worthwhile goal to try to treat individual whales a bit better, even if it means we pay less attention to species."yes, in your kind of world we'll have zoos for 'individuals', surrounded by wasteland. Thu 24 Jun 2010 20:53:43 GMT+1 bowmanthebard http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/whaling_many_interested_partie.html?page=81#comment58 bowmanthebard #57: It "fills a volume in eco-system space"? That's a moral reason, is it?"#58 davblo #58: It's a reason. You put the qualifying word "moral" in your question not I. Why does it have to be precisely a "moral" reason?Because we were talking about what deserves moral respect. I think that ONLY the wishes of sentient individuals deserve moral respect -- in other words, we ought morally to accommodate them as much as possible. For example, animals clearly want to live -- they run away from predators and other sources of danger. Morally, we ought not to kill them -- and that applies to me, an immoral meat-eater, as much as everyone else.I just can't see what independent reason anyone would have to respect groups apart from teleology (i.e. "we must respect God's plan"). So it seems to me that although individuals should be given various legal rights, groups deserve no legal rights at all. Groups don't even have wishes, so they don't have interests.When you said that we ought to respect groups because their continued existence allow individual humans to live, that's really an appeal to the moral respect that human individuals deserve.When you said that we should respect groups because they fill a "volume" in a "system", that sounds more like it, because you are appealing to the moral respect that that "system" itself deserves instead of the individuals in it. But can you explain why anyone should respect that "system", apart from the welfare of the individuals in it? If it's only their welfare that counts, then you agree with me that only individuals matter. If there's something in the system itself that deserves respect, please explain why anyone should respect it. It sounds inescapably teleological. Thu 24 Jun 2010 15:23:58 GMT+1 davblo http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/whaling_many_interested_partie.html?page=80#comment57 bowmanthebard #57: "It "fills a volume in eco-system space"? That's a moral reason, is it?"It's a reason. You put the qualifying word "moral" in your question not I. Why does it have to be precisely a "moral" reason?bowmanthebard #57: "It sounds like more religious hogwash."Why should a logical and reasonable "reason" to respect something be "religious hogwash"?If you have an explanation please state it clearly./davblo Thu 24 Jun 2010 12:50:47 GMT+1 bowmanthebard http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/whaling_many_interested_partie.html?page=78#comment56 #55 davblo wrote:Respect for the group (species) comes with acknowledging that it fills a "volume" in "eco-system-space" and that if you took away all such groups there would be nothing left to support human life.It "fills a volume in eco-system space"? That's a moral reason, is it? It doesn't sound like one. It sounds like more religious hogwash. Thu 24 Jun 2010 11:01:52 GMT+1 Chryses http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/whaling_many_interested_partie.html?page=77#comment55 bowmanthebard,(at 09:44am on 24 Jun 2010)“... Is it not obvious that ecologists are the ones who are trying to "maintain the natural order" instead of simply letting things unfold as they naturally would anyway, with or without human intervention? ...”Is it not obvious that firing harpoons from ships into whales satisfies a ‘not natural’ criterion? Thu 24 Jun 2010 11:00:22 GMT+1 davblo http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/whaling_many_interested_partie.html?page=76#comment54 bowmanthebard #54: "But what sort of moral respect could a group conceivably deserve?" Not for your benefit because you continually respond as if you don't understand; but for anyone else...Respect for individuals come with acknowledging their sentience.Respect for the group (species) comes with acknowledging that it fills a "volume" in "eco-system-space" and that if you took away all such groups there would be nothing left to support human life./davblo Thu 24 Jun 2010 10:28:01 GMT+1 bowmanthebard http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/whaling_many_interested_partie.html?page=74#comment53 #53 simon-swede wrote:"I for one, believe that there are considerations relevant to individuals AND to groups; and that this is nothing to do with any quasi-religious perspective."But what sort of moral respect could a group conceivably deserve? Thu 24 Jun 2010 09:25:45 GMT+1 simon-swede http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/whaling_many_interested_partie.html?page=73#comment52 Bowman at #52 (Is it not obvious that ecologists are the ones who are...)No. It is obvious that you think this. That's all.I would consider myself an ecologist. As such, I am particularly interested in the ongoing impacts of human societies on ecosystems. You seem to consider that it is necessary to choose between "caring" between a "group" or "individuals". In other posts, you imply that it is not possible to do both. I for one, believe that there are considerations relevant to individuals AND to groups; and that this is nothing to do with any quasi-religious perspective. Once again, it seems to me distinction you are trying to make is an artificial one that reflects nothing more than your own "religious" preferences and "cockeyed" notions of the world "order". As such you are welcome to them - but I for one have no desire to share them! Thu 24 Jun 2010 09:08:03 GMT+1 bowmanthebard http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/whaling_many_interested_partie.html?page=71#comment51 #51 simon-swede wrote:"You have a habit of referring to what "many people" think (or "many environmentalists", or "many AGW 'believers'"), but you never explain why you IMAGINE it to be so."Is it not obvious that ecologists are the ones who are trying to "maintain the natural order" instead of simply letting things unfold as they naturally would anyway, with or without human intervention? It is ecologists who, in their efforts to ensure that this or that group (usually a species) retains its pre-ordained position in the supposed natural order, conduct the sort of killing projects disguised by sinister euphemisms such as 'cull'.Much of that sort of thinking originated among landed gentry whose real aim was to maintain a regular supply of game on their estates. In recent times, such people have adopted fashion accessories such as shepherd's crooks, larded their speech with eco-euphemisms and religious mysticism, and jumped on the eco-fascist bandwagon.Non-ecologists simply don't care about how this or that group is faring. Non-ecologists tend to care about individuals, not group. Most want to live in a cleaner, kinder world, and don't flirt with cockeyed religious ideas about maintaining the natural order.The apparent "sacredness" that ecologists attribute to species is very similar to that attributed by fascists to "the race". Thinking in terms of groups like that is poison, in my opinion. Thu 24 Jun 2010 08:44:04 GMT+1 simon-swede http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/whaling_many_interested_partie.html?page=70#comment50 Bowman at #48You have a habit of referring to what "many people" think (or "many environmentalists", or "many AGW 'believers'"), but you never explain why you IMAGINE it to be so. Without providing a basis for the claims asserting that "many" people or groups of people believe something, you are doing nothing more than projecting your imagination. Thu 24 Jun 2010 05:25:40 GMT+1 simon-swede http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/whaling_many_interested_partie.html?page=69#comment49 Bowman at #26Unlike you, apparently, the authors of the article you provide a link to seem to have more confidence of the quality of the research that makes it into Nature (and Science).They wrote: "For the fact is that one article with a high citation rating should count more than 10 articles with negligible ratings. Moving to the model that Nature and Science use would have far-reaching and enormously beneficial effects." Thu 24 Jun 2010 05:19:46 GMT+1 Chryses http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/whaling_many_interested_partie.html?page=67#comment48 sensibleoldgrannie (at 7:32pm on 23 Jun 2010)“… why doesn't the rest of the population actively stop it? Are people afraid that they will culled for speaking out?”What do you suggest they actively do to stop it? Wed 23 Jun 2010 22:32:34 GMT+1 bowmanthebard http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/whaling_many_interested_partie.html?page=66#comment47 #47 sensibleoldgrannie wrote:"The worst of this present situation is the sheer number of those opposed to whaling."I wish you were right, but there really cannot be all that many opposed to whaling in countries such as Iceland, Norway or Japan. If there were, their politicians/representatives would act on their wishes. All of the above countries are (nowadays) decent democracies.If you ask me, a lot of the problems stem from the fact that many environmentalists "cull" ( = kill) individuals of a species in order to promote the species. (I'm not saying this doesn't actually promote the species, just that we should re-think our goals: maybe individuals matter more than species.) This activity confuses many people. Wed 23 Jun 2010 18:49:40 GMT+1 sensiblegrannie http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/whaling_many_interested_partie.html?page=64#comment46 When you see a mother whale and a baby whale dragged up a slope into a fish factory ship it makes you think. There was a relentlessly awful film, War of the Worlds (modern version), where humans were being harvested for food. The worst of this present situation is the sheer number of those opposed to whaling. If only a very small minority eat whale, why doesn't the rest of the population actively stop it? Are people afraid that they will culled for speaking out? Wed 23 Jun 2010 18:32:41 GMT+1 bowmanthebard http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/whaling_many_interested_partie.html?page=63#comment45 Since I seem to have missed my own point, it must be pretty easy to miss... Maybe you have missed the point I meant to make, which is that we have to be clear about what we mean by "saving the whale". There is all the difference in the world between (a) being decent to individual whales, and (b) being very protective of whale species, at the same time as being beastly to individuals whales.I don't see anything very admirable about saving whale species, if all that results from it is that future generations of humans get to treat future generations of whales with the same cruelty and indifference as previous generations of humans have treated them. But I do think it is a worthwhile goal to try to treat individual whales a bit better, even if it means we pay less attention to species.Much the same applies to grey and red squirrels, by the way. There are people out there -- Prince Charles among them -- who are rotten to grey squirrels because they have a twisted religious ideas about squirrel species, and about the pre-ordained place in the British Isles of the red. It's "ein Volk" for squirrels as far as Charlie Saxe-Coburg-Gotha is concerned! Wed 23 Jun 2010 18:05:48 GMT+1 jr4412 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/whaling_many_interested_partie.html?page=61#comment44 bowmanthebard #44.well, perhaps you're toothless after all.[mirthless smile] Wed 23 Jun 2010 17:48:24 GMT+1 bowmanthebard http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/whaling_many_interested_partie.html?page=60#comment43 Sorry, I'm a bit thick: still no idea! Wed 23 Jun 2010 17:38:15 GMT+1 jr4412 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/whaling_many_interested_partie.html?page=59#comment42 bowmanthebard #42."I have no idea what you're on about."no? then please re-read your comments here (and on the previous blog) concerning the killing of prey, then think.(hint: Poirot uses his little grey cells for the purpose) Wed 23 Jun 2010 17:26:27 GMT+1 bowmanthebard http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/whaling_many_interested_partie.html?page=57#comment41 #40 jr4412 wrote:"why do you think humans have incisors? to tear turnips limb-from-limb?"I have no idea what you're on about. Wed 23 Jun 2010 17:17:06 GMT+1 ghostofsichuan http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/whaling_many_interested_partie.html?page=56#comment40 manysummits:I read history and have for many years and that leads to understanding the cultures and arts and such and the many interesting people and travelers and mixes of civilizations. The Silk Road has always been an area of interest and the spread of Buddhism along that route and the trading of West and East and all the really bad decisions made by many bad governments and the influence and power of wealth and the destruction that has caused. The human spirit continues to rise above the greed and abuse and occasionally reasserts itself against the forces of corruption. Nothing happening today has not happended before. Cycles of corruption and reform.....China's first Emperor instituted socialism and the Chinese have been Capitalist for over a thousand years. Like most nations, poorly administered and corrupt governments and greed are the true history. When you look at the East and the West the conclusion is that culture hides the similar aspects of accumulation of wealth and how that easily corrupts governments. Human beings are basically the same everywhere and in a short time of 5,000 years of civilization and much less in any real organized structure, we have been unable to overcome the selfishness required in the previous 1 or 2 million years for basic daily survival. The banking scandle is the most blatant form of robbery since countries were divided into kingdoms and one would invade the other simply to take what they had and the divine right to tax the people. The end result has been that the banks are indiretly taxing citizens through the governments. For governments to pretend that they are in control is embarassing and their weakness will be their downfall.. All revolutions are in the name of the poor but funded and organized by the middle class. The middle class is threatened again. BP oil spill is nothing more than big business having sway over governments and insuring that regulations were not enforced and the gamble was that saving money would not have consequences. Profit before all. Nothing has value but money in this world and of course money has no value. These kind of illusions are why monks laugh a lot. I would seek a hermitage in the Yellow Mountains but am afraid tourist would show up and want autographed copies of Chinese proverbs and ancient sage cut-outs they could stick their heads through with a cave in the background for pictures. Wed 23 Jun 2010 16:44:50 GMT+1 jr4412 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/whaling_many_interested_partie.html?page=54#comment39 bowmanthebard #37, #38."..the animals they kill, disembowel, cook..""..humans eat them now, and human nature doesn't change very quickly."getting a bit weary of your non-argument(s).why do you think humans have incisors? to tear turnips limb-from-limb? Wed 23 Jun 2010 16:37:26 GMT+1 davblo http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/whaling_many_interested_partie.html?page=53#comment38 bowmanthebard #35: "...but appealing to a 'system' just sounds like religious hogwash to me."You are rather predictable./davblo Wed 23 Jun 2010 16:34:00 GMT+1 bowmanthebard http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/whaling_many_interested_partie.html?page=52#comment37 #33 Smiffie wrote:"Well they could always eat them"I suspect they probably will, because humans eat them now, and human nature doesn't change very quickly.Or perhaps they will "respect" them in some other way! Wed 23 Jun 2010 16:19:29 GMT+1 bowmanthebard http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/whaling_many_interested_partie.html?page=50#comment36 manysummits #34."Indigenous cultures, close to the land, appear to have universally used societal taboos and the idea of respect for the land - Mother Earth."Would this be the same sort of "respect" as the respect they have for the animals they kill, disembowel, cook, etc.? Wed 23 Jun 2010 16:02:17 GMT+1 jr4412 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/whaling_many_interested_partie.html?page=49#comment35 manysummits #34."Indigenous cultures, close to the land, appear to have universally used societal taboos and the idea of respect for the land - Mother Earth."but for the last 2k years the apes have been praying to their 'Father', and look where we wound up. sigh.. Wed 23 Jun 2010 15:57:32 GMT+1 bowmanthebard http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/whaling_many_interested_partie.html?page=47#comment34 #30 davblo wrote:"Whales are a part of the system we happen to be able to survive in."I believe we should not kill whales because they're sentient individuals, but appealing to a "system" just sounds like religious hogwash to me. Wed 23 Jun 2010 15:52:24 GMT+1 manysummits http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/whaling_many_interested_partie.html?page=46#comment33 "Man has lost the capacity to foresee and to forestall. He will end by destroying the earth. ~Albert Schweitzer, quoted in James Brabazon, Albert Schweitzer""As we watch the sun go down, evening after evening, through the smog across the poisoned waters of our native earth, we must ask ourselves seriously whether we really wish some future universal historian on another planet to say about us: "With all their genius and with all their skill, they ran out of foresight and air and food and water and ideas," or, "They went on playing politics until their world collapsed around them." ~U Thant, speech, 1970"==============Obviously both comments merit caveats. Here is an assortment of environmental quotes which categorically demonstrate that some of us can indeed 'foresee.'But they are "The Imaginative Few."http://www.quotegarden.com/environment.htmlForestalling I think is a direct consequence of not enough of us understanding and agreeing with these ideas - and with the imaginative few.Indigenous cultures, close to the land, appear to have universally used societal taboos and the idea of respect for the land - Mother Earth.Undoubtedly because most people can operate with this as their religion.Abandoning the very idea of religion has thus been a mistake of the first order.The idea that somehow men can change their basic natures and 'see' the world in secular terms only, using sovereign reason - this has been our great mistake.Thomas Jefferson was always trying to improve men's minds.No such improvement is possible, when you think about it.Ergo, we need a new religion - desperately!- Manysummits - Wed 23 Jun 2010 15:48:07 GMT+1 Smiffie http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/whaling_many_interested_partie.html?page=45#comment32 bowmanthebard @#25 said “what do you expect future generations to do with the whales we manage to save for them?”Well they could always eat them, maybe by eating whales they will be saving whales from their unfulfilling life styles (Wolfiewoods). The point of my post @ 19 was that energy issues are of much more importance to most people, myself included, than the fate of whales.Every generation rebels against the last and green is now the boring middle-aged establishment. Wed 23 Jun 2010 15:33:22 GMT+1 JunkkMale http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/whaling_many_interested_partie.html?page=43#comment31 27. At 3:35pm on 23 Jun 2010, JunkkMale wrote:This can be important, as President Bush recently tried to emphasise, if ineptly.Speaking of ineptitude, or maybe Freudian slips, I do of course mean the new bloke. Though it is sometimes hard to discern much difference between them. Wed 23 Jun 2010 15:17:37 GMT+1 manysummits http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/whaling_many_interested_partie.html?page=42#comment30 Ghost #24: "The insufferable arrogance of human beings to think that Nature was made solely for their benefit, as if it was conceivable that the sun had been set afire merely to ripen men's apples and head their cabbages. ~Savinien de Cyrano de Bergerac, États et empires de la lune, 1656"===============That's powerful stuff Ghost!!!If I may ask a personal question - how do you find the time and the energy to know so much?I am always dumbfounded at your knowledge base, and at your assimilation of this and your ability to translate this into words on this page.Is not the present and coming turmoil not enough to produce a visionary leader?- Manysummits - Wed 23 Jun 2010 14:52:17 GMT+1 davblo http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/whaling_many_interested_partie.html?page=40#comment29 bowmanthebard #25: "By the way, what do you expect future generations to do with the whales we manage to save for them?"Whales are a part of the system we happen to be able to survive in.If you dismiss all other species with your sweeping sarcastic comment then there would soon be no such "system" for our "future generations" to live in.Maybe you don't care about that either./davblo Wed 23 Jun 2010 14:50:01 GMT+1 manysummits http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/whaling_many_interested_partie.html?page=39#comment28 Ghostofsichuan #21:"In todays world the process overshadows the issue and thus the issue becomes secondary. There is no political leadership on any issue, there is only political leadership in the promotion of the accumulation of wealth by the few and how to passify the many...The banks that were saved by the taxpayers will abandon the West as they abandoned the East 100 years ago. Cheap European labor will be making products for Asia in the future."==============Ghost, your writing is taking on the savage tone that I discussed in my #28!And your words are entirely accurate as things stand now.Is it not even remotely possible that there is a third way?That the United Nations concept, if fully realized - is that way?- Manysummits - Wed 23 Jun 2010 14:46:32 GMT+1 manysummits http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/whaling_many_interested_partie.html?page=38#comment27 "In 1946, in response to obvious declines, whaling nations formed the International Whaling Commission (IWC) to regulate the numbers taken - and thus, in theory, to preserve the whales and so the whaling industry."- Sylvia Earle, "The World is Blue" (2009; p.35); ("member of the IWC for four years and deputy commissioner for the United States for two" - ibid)=======================Apparently this commission has failed to make further progress.One is inclined to ask if yet another meeting will produce results? A similar 'idea gridlock' appears to have infected the recent Copenhagen Climate Conference.I am reminded of the words of Albert Einstein, who appears to confirm the idea that "a good mind is a good mind is a good mind.""No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it.We must learn to see the world anew."=============I think that's what I did in my seven years in the mountains - 'learn to see the world anew.' No doubt many are tired of hearing this refrain. That's unfortunate but acceptable. If all I can do here on this blog is make noise, perhaps someone will find in that noise 'a signal.'For what it's worth, here is my signal:The IWC should be disbanded - its founding principle is out of date. (see Sylvia Earle's quotation at the top of this post)Those few nations which continue to whale will do so as rogue nations, and perhaps public pressure will in the end succeed where the IWC has not.But the IWC has achieved much?Perhaps, but 'all things must pass.'There is catharsis in bold action - an invigorating 'new way of looking at the world.'For me, the whales, large and small, are more valuable alive than dead.As there is no 'necessity' to kill them, it is adolescent to continue to do so.What about their role as iconic top predators and keystone species?Too cold and detached - even the word 'valuable' is suspect.In talking about reality, James Baldwin once said:"People who shut their eyes to reality simply invite their own destruction, and anyone who insists on remaining in a state of innocence long after that innocence is dead turns himself into a monster."Isn't reality such that we need no longer hunt whales for a living - that doing so demeans us, and distracts us from the task at hand, which is not to preserve an outdated way of life and thinking, but rather to preserve the world ocean, our source of life on this planet.I am becoming a big fan of Chris Hedges "Empire of Illusion" (2010)One of the advantages of having read hundreds of books is that one can almost 'inhale' a new one, which is what I have done with this new book.Chris Hedges is a Pulitzer Prize winner, and I can see why. So perhaps it is worth thinking about what he has to say, and how he says it:"A culture that cannot distinguish between reality and illusion dies.And we are dying now."This is a savage book, savagely written. Its tone mimics my own - We must cast out the old, and in doing so we will reinvent the future.This is of course anathema to the powers that be, and not all of these powers are corporate executives.Our universities have failed us too, generating far too many servile personalities.I had the opportunity of a backyard talk session last night. Without a doubt, Chris Hedges is largely correct - we are narrowly self-interested, and abysmally informed.Because knowledge is available on the Internet does not make its use any the less difficult.Where there is no vision, the people perish."- Proverbs 29- Manysummits in Calgary - Wed 23 Jun 2010 14:37:34 GMT+1 JunkkMale http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/whaling_many_interested_partie.html?page=36#comment26 12. At 09:11am on 23 Jun 2010, simon-swede wrote:Absolutely! I was simply trying to express my puzzlement as to why someone would spend so much time on the pages of a news source that they dismiss as 'propaganda'. It just seems somewhat masochistic to me.Again, a view; sincerely held and doubtless expressed.Thing is, and not wishing to try and explain the feelings of others, there is this rather unique funding situation here where, to gain access to televisual broadcasts in any form, one is compelled to pay for the BBC's service. Now, as an enforced stakeholder (I fear that the 'well don't watch' logic rather doesn't work for me, as I am sure 'don't pay attention to the strip mining' would not with an ethical investor seeking to effect change from within), I therefore do take an interest in the output in 'my' name, being British. This can be important, as President Bush recently tried to emphasise, if ineptly.Hence I can, and often do think the odd cranked eyebrow or even critique may not go amiss. And having recently had a Cabinet Minister and PM seemingly try to lump me and some others (many of us merely asking what I felt, and still feel to be pretty key questions in light of big ticket policies founded on 'settled science'... that often turns out not quite as settled as claimed) in some pretty odd (flat-earther) or sinister (saboteur) categories, I can empathise with any feeling being told to go play at a another pitch when one is co-funding this one seems... discomfiting.Now I clearly don't agree with all you may think or share, as I do not not some of what others come out with either. On matters climatic I have tended to avoid any further engagement, at least here, as it seems fruitless. Though some do seem to enjoy the merry-go-round each post. It hence seems less a news source, including original posts that can and often do seem to be disputed, and more of a commentary or discussion thread. One can read and stay lurking, or chip in to taste. And hence a more informed opinion may be derived.Where I do get more interested, and involved, is in areas of free speech. This blog had its tribal 'clubs' before, and they were not very helpful IMHO. 'Why bother coming' is but a step to 'not welcome' to 'you should be in jail'. Recall that one a while ago? It will still be there in the archive, as the mods felt that was just fine, in my view operating some mixed standards at best. I also recently felt the enthusiasm for 'lists' as a bit creepy.Speaking of the red pencil, I am just hoping this post may not suffer from any that can and does get applied. I am only replying to you, after all. There is, of course, the DEFCON 5 of 'watertight oversight', which seemed only to be clamped down to an eco-blog discussion when much of the BBC's output is clearly based on less than proven facts when it suits.Maybe a touch of selective sadism there? One is sure that all felt the cold turkey of being denied an opinion outlet during that time. Wed 23 Jun 2010 14:35:25 GMT+1 bowmanthebard http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/whaling_many_interested_partie.html?page=35#comment25 It's a hopeful sign to see some academics in the Chronicle of Higher Education calling for an end to "the avalanche of low-quality research":http://chronicle.com/article/We-Must-Stop-the-Avalanche-of/65890/Personally, I'm waiting for Nature's latest "study" to reveal whether God exists -- based on getting some theologians together and having a show of hands! Wed 23 Jun 2010 14:21:11 GMT+1 bowmanthebard http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/whaling_many_interested_partie.html?page=33#comment24 #19 Smiffie wrote:"it would appear that saving whales for future generations is not that important to most people"Many people on this blog seem to think there won't be any future generations. So they have no reason to save whales for them.By the way, what do you expect future generations to do with the whales we manage to save for them? Wed 23 Jun 2010 14:13:51 GMT+1 ghostofsichuan http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/whaling_many_interested_partie.html?page=32#comment23 manysummits:The predictable skeptics with the positions that if they "believe" something that that is the same as proof, gets boring. Corporate hacks and those who view Capitalism as a religion is less than stimulating. Add this to those with political agendas. The insufferable arrogance of human beings to think that Nature was made solely for their benefit, as if it was conceivable that the sun had been set afire merely to ripen men's apples and head their cabbages. ~Savinien de Cyrano de Bergerac, États et empires de la lune, 1656 Wed 23 Jun 2010 14:12:59 GMT+1 jr4412 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/whaling_many_interested_partie.html?page=30#comment22 Smiffie #19."..it would appear that saving whales for future generations is not that important.."what's the point of 'saving' a(nother) trophy species?commitment is needed to treat all of the natural world with more consideration. Wed 23 Jun 2010 14:10:05 GMT+1 bowmanthebard http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/whaling_many_interested_partie.html?page=29#comment21 When I hear people talking about having everything except "the political will", I have to laugh. It's like a castaway saying he is able leave the island any time he likes -- absolutely no problem at all, apart from not having a boat.Any politician in a democracy who wants to keep his career has to observe "rule 1": he must keep his constituents happy. To say that all we need is the "political will" or even that "national interests predominate" is to miss the point completely. The people that matter most just don't want what you want.Anyone who is genuinely worried about CO2 emissions and is genuinely hopeful that politicians will all get together to agree to limit their own emissions has got another think coming. Just look around you. Look at the size of the cars your neighbours are driving. Do you think they give a damn about your silly little religion compared to their family's welfare, their jobs, and so on? Wake up. Switch to Plan B. If you don't have a Plan B yet, you'd better come up with one.If you really are concerned about CO2 emissions, or saving "the" whale, or whatever, it's time to consider your fellow-travellers -- mostly the left -- and their fatal, perennial failing: they are constitutionally incapable of thinking in realistic terms about what can realistically be achieved. Rather than considering compromises and messy accommodations with people who disagree with them, they have their heads up their a---- as per usual, contemplating "world government", "respect of the hunter for his prey", and the familiar host of "idealistic", self-flattering, conceptually confused utopian scenarios.If you really want to do some good for "the" whale, the least you can do is get clear on the difference between whale species and individual sentient whales, and try to work out which one you want to save, and above all WHY! Wed 23 Jun 2010 14:06:54 GMT+1 ghostofsichuan http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/whaling_many_interested_partie.html?page=28#comment20 Compromise is usually the process that creates additional meetings for bureaucrats. The bureaucratic process is to extend every process as long as possible without ever having to make a firm commitment. Politicians encourage this, and often interfer when resolution is forthcoming, so that they can always claim support for both sides. We have become very accepting of nothing of importance ever being accomplished. Little victories are now presented as major changes. Jingles and jargon, distortions and disingenuous statements presented with misleading headlines have beome the accepted norm. Should it really take this long to make decisions? In todays world the process overshadows the issue and thus the issue becomes secondary. There is no political leadership on any issue, there is only political leadership in the promotion of the accumulation of wealth by the few and how to passify the many. The bill will come due soon and the politicians and bankers will be surprised, they always are when the abuse crosses the line. This century belongs to the East as the worn out nation states of the West are too corrupt to even save themselves. The banks that were saved by the taxpayers will abandon the West as they abandoned the East 100 years ago. Cheap European labor will be making products for Asia in the future. Wed 23 Jun 2010 13:57:48 GMT+1 jr4412 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/whaling_many_interested_partie.html?page=26#comment19 simon-swede #15.further to #16, there's also:"..BBC director general Sir Hugh Greene became involved a long dispute with MI5 because he wanted more vetting [of BBC staff] to avoid potentially embarrassing scandals."independent? LOL Wed 23 Jun 2010 13:22:00 GMT+1 Smiffie http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/whaling_many_interested_partie.html?page=25#comment18 One day on and less than 20 posts, it would appear that saving whales for future generations is not that important to most people. Developing secure energy for future generations though is important to most people, such energy may not necessarily be green though, coal to liquid, bio-fuel etc. Wed 23 Jun 2010 13:14:58 GMT+1 simon-swede http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/whaling_many_interested_partie.html?page=23#comment17 Just read Richard's 'Whaling 'peace deal' falls apart' and noted teh following (quote from Geoffrey Palmer):"But we are in the situation now where the gaps cannot at this time be bridged; and the reason for this I think is obvious enough - there is an absence of a political will to bridge those gaps, an absence of political will to compromise." Seems that for once I wasn't completely off the mark with the last of my comemnts in #11 (i.e. that the peace process did not appear to have helped identify what needs to be done to reduce and eliminate the disagreements - something which required a change of attitudes).And for once I wish I had been more wrong! Wed 23 Jun 2010 11:35:36 GMT+1 bowmanthebard http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/whaling_many_interested_partie.html?page=22#comment16 #16 jr4412 wrote:"I do make an effort to get news from other sources but the radio (R4) is running in the background most of the day"There's also the urge to "get one's money's worth" on the part of licence-payers. Like eating a meal that one has been forced to pay for. Wed 23 Jun 2010 10:51:23 GMT+1 jr4412 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/whaling_many_interested_partie.html?page=21#comment15 simon-swede #14, #15.I do make an effort to get news from other sources but the radio (R4) is running in the background most of the day, 'breaking news' usually comes courtesy of the BBC."With the royal charter, they were required to be independent of any direct political and commercial control."googling '"list of directors" BBC' yields link to a BBC PDF titled 'director-generals.pdf'; a most interesting list which shows that (until recently) all incumbents were SIR's, OBEs, etc -- safe hands one and all, known not to rock the boat.so, no "direct political" control but control none the less. Wed 23 Jun 2010 10:15:40 GMT+1 simon-swede http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/whaling_many_interested_partie.html?page=19#comment14 jr at #13You wrote: "after freely reporting they were shut down and then re-animated w/ Royal charter makes me think"Prior to the royal charter the corporation was formed by a group of companies (presumably reflecting their commercial interests, at least in part). With the royal charter, they were required to be independent of any direct political and commercial control. Wed 23 Jun 2010 09:42:53 GMT+1 simon-swede http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/whaling_many_interested_partie.html?page=18#comment13 jr # 13You write: "lucky you, BBC reporting is entirely anglo-centric"Huh! English-language media is not my main source of news. Wed 23 Jun 2010 09:38:33 GMT+1 jr4412 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/whaling_many_interested_partie.html?page=16#comment12 simon-swede #10, #12."With which bit do you have a problem? That it had a 'baptism of fire' or that it was given a royal charter?"neither, and problem isn't the word.you queried propaganda outlet; the fact that after freely reporting they were shut down and then re-animated w/ Royal charter makes me think."I read the BBC because I consider that it consistently has high-quality reporting."lucky you, BBC reporting is entirely anglo-centric (which I struggle with) and while a lot of it is of 'high-quality' - consistently?"It just seems somewhat masochistic to me."ah yes, life among sqabbling naked apes is like that. Wed 23 Jun 2010 08:57:26 GMT+1 simon-swede http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/whaling_many_interested_partie.html?page=15#comment11 JunkkMale at #9You wrote: "That is a point of view, and one more than welcome to be expressed in a free society."Absolutely! I was simply trying to express my puzzlement as to why someone would spend so much time on the pages of a news source that they dismiss as 'propaganda'. It just seems somewhat masochistic to me. Wed 23 Jun 2010 08:11:33 GMT+1 simon-swede http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/whaling_many_interested_partie.html?page=14#comment10 Richard writes that "National interests are what predominate". True. One thing I miss however is that those national interests may be far from monolithic and may even come down to how individual personalities present at the meeting interpret their country's national interest (and/or have freedom to act within any given instructions).On another theme... The current story in the news section (Hopes fade of compromise over whaling) raises the issue of whether a decision might be postponed. On the one hand 'forcing' a decision through would create problems - since the outset of the peace talks, there have been mutterings that an unstaisfactory outcome would lead either to the collapse of the IWC as a whole or individual country's leaving the IWC (as Iceland did for a period in the 1990s to early 2000s). On the other hand, it is hard to see that a postponment would be likely to result in more possibilities for a 'satisfactory' compromise to be reached UNLESS something changes before the next IWC session. The peace process was meant to help reduce the polarity by finding areas of common ground. It certainly helped identify the most important elements of disagreement more clearly. However, so far, it does not seem to have helped identify what needs to be done to help reduce and eliminate those disagreements. To the extent that it is a change of attitudes that seems most necessary, it is not so obvious that a continuation of the process as it has been so far will get the IWC further towards a new agreement. Wed 23 Jun 2010 08:07:07 GMT+1 simon-swede http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/whaling_many_interested_partie.html?page=12#comment9 Jr at #5With which bit do you have a problem? That it had a 'baptism of fire' or that it was given a royal charter?I read the BBC because I consider that it consistently has high-quality reporting. Wed 23 Jun 2010 07:39:51 GMT+1 JunkkMale http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/whaling_many_interested_partie.html?page=11#comment8 3. At 10:20pm on 22 Jun 2010, simon-swede wrote:jr at #2If you really consider that the BBC is the "propaganda outlet for the establishment" why on earth do you keep on coming here to read it?That is a point of view, and one more than welcome to be expressed in a free society. Shame that the irony of that sentiment is lost in some, often uniquely funded, quarters.There's fact and there's opinion. There's what's worth preserving and there's what's worth looking at improving. There's good and there's bad. Edmund Burke had a thought on that.Some others may preserve the Status Quo.http://www.lyricskid.com/lyrics/status-quo-lyrics/ain~t-complaining-lyrics.html Wed 23 Jun 2010 07:38:09 GMT+1 Saltpeter http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/whaling_many_interested_partie.html?page=9#comment7 @manysummits #6Please convey to all and sundry that one Calgarian is all for maintaining the moratorium, and dealing with transgressors in the International Courts.What charges should be filed, and against whom? Wed 23 Jun 2010 01:14:50 GMT+1 manysummits http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/whaling_many_interested_partie.html?page=8#comment6 To Ghostofsichuan, and an Addendum to #6:Hi Ghost - thought you might have tired of this page?I imagine you will be in agreement with the sayings attached to 'Janice Harvey's' email to me in #6?I suppose on this blog we are at stage one - Martin Luther King Jr's admonition to at least make some noise!But stage two looks more difficult - taking power from these plutocrats.At this time my back is up, and I am itching for a fight.Just trying not to get run over by the juggernaut.It's a type of guerilla war, isn't it?- Manysummits - Tue 22 Jun 2010 22:46:14 GMT+1 manysummits http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/whaling_many_interested_partie.html?page=7#comment5 To Richard Black: re 'the common interest of whales and future generations'"The assumption would be completely wrong." (RB)I take it the mood in Agadir is 'skeptical'?Please convey to all and sundry that one Calgarian is all for maintaining the moratorium, and dealing with transgressors in the International Courts.Hang in there Richard,ManysummitsPS: Here is something I received in response to an email to the Green Party of Canada, as I try and figure out if anyone politically is straight up? Only the final salutation is reproduced here:Janice HarveyNominated Candidate, New Brunswick SouthwestGreen Party of Canada Fisheries Critic"If there is no struggle, there is no progress....Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will."Frederick Douglass, 1857."Our lives begin to end the day we stay silent about the things that matter."Martin Luther King Jr. Tue 22 Jun 2010 22:24:19 GMT+1 jr4412 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/whaling_many_interested_partie.html?page=5#comment4 simon-swede #3.#4 continued: how do you read this?..after the baptism of fire of covering the 1926 General Strike - the company was dissolved and the British Broadcasting Corporation formed with a royal charter. Tue 22 Jun 2010 22:16:06 GMT+1 jr4412 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/whaling_many_interested_partie.html?page=4#comment3 simon-swede #3.I'll also read the Telegraph, 'know thine enemy' and all that. Tue 22 Jun 2010 22:01:07 GMT+1 simon-swede http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/whaling_many_interested_partie.html?page=2#comment2 jr at #2If you really consider that the BBC is the "propaganda outlet for the establishment" why on earth do you keep on coming here to read it? Tue 22 Jun 2010 21:20:55 GMT+1 jr4412 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/whaling_many_interested_partie.html?page=1#comment1 Richard Black."Whenever governments come together to discuss issues ... you might be tempted to think that the priority would be the common good."no, that is what the governments and the BBC, propaganda outlet for the establishment, would have us believe. Tue 22 Jun 2010 20:10:14 GMT+1 ghostofsichuan http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/whaling_many_interested_partie.html?page=0#comment0 International agreements, and national agreements, tend to be somewhat different than the Titles or Headlines. The devil is always in the details and the "must" are always changed to "may". Even when the slightest mandates are constructed on the international levels they are hardly ever enforced or series of meetings occur that go on for years before the non-resolution is drafted that usually is a promise to try to do better. These things do keep bureaucrats employed and may the primary function. If equal attention were paid to banking regulations we would all be in a safer and more secure world, and the outrage over whales was equal to the outrage of working conditions in Asia for those producing the products bought in the West. When there are no standards for ethical behavior in government, business or banking little will be realized of any merit. They work very hard insuring that nothing of importance is done. The subject goes from international agreement, to national interest to local economies and at each step the interest of the Whales is diminished...the stated rationale for the meeting. Tue 22 Jun 2010 16:08:46 GMT+1