Slashdot Mirror
Genetic Study Provides Estimate of Whale Populations
ChopsMIDI writes "Many more whales were hunted in the 18th century than thought, a genetic study of the North Atlantic animals suggests. U.S. researchers say the International Whaling Commission may be underestimating by tenfold the number of whales in the seas before hunting began."
wales? Oh Whales. I'm going back to sleep.
Is it a boat?
This is pretty bogus. They simply want to stop whales from ever being hunted again. The current agreements specify when hunting can begin again. They number is set based on historic levels. If they can "prove" that whale levels were much higher, they can insure they will never be hunted again because they will never reach huntable levels.
"All I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power." - Ashleigh Brilliant
I question the accuracy of the results. Even the article pointed out that the study may be flawed due to the assumptions made.
But really, in the end, why does it matter how many whales were hunted in the 18th century, when hunting them is already banned? We're not trying to make a case for banning hunting or anything...so I don't understand. Unless we're going to start talking about paying reparations to whales in compensation for their ancestors' loss and hardship. In which case we still have more serious things to worry about than 18th-century whale hunting.
Sola Scriptura * Sola Gratia * Sola Fide * Solus Christus * Soli Deo Gloria
To be honest, I don't know what to think of it. Please someone post an opinionated piece that will tell me what to think, I am not a bright guy when it's 18th century matters being discussed.
If you can make it profitiable for companies to invest in breeding a speices, that speices will thrive. Horses would probably be extinct now if there weren't people intentionally breeding them for recreational use. I don't know enough about breeding whales to speak to this issue specifically, but I do know that there are probably a lot of creatures on this planet that thrive only because of economic motivation.
The study bogus? It was done by whale biologists!
I suffer from attention surplus disorder.
But really, in the end, why does it matter how many whales were hunted in the 18th century ...
It matters because international treaties were signed that banned whale hunting until whale populations returned to 54% of what they were before mass whaling in the 18th century.
So if this study is correct (and there are severe doubts on its accuracy) then no whaling will be allowed for at least another 50 - 100 years.
If this study is wrong and the current numbers based on the number of whales recorded as killed by whalers is correct then some whales like the humpback may be allowed to be hunted in less than 5 years.
The biggest reason this study's results are called into question is that it uses a new method with unknown accuracy to contradict by an order of magnitude the numbers that can be arrived at by the amount of whale oil sold. the amount of whale oil sold is considered to be a very reliable number.
previously, the population was estimated by using the logbooks from the whalers. these results were generally in line with the amount of whale oil sold.
Hmmm..... Reading a challenge for you? It is great for you to have an opinion that disagrees with mine. More power to you. However, if you mod me down because my opinion differs from yours, me thinks you are feeling a bit threatened.
As for the study and who it was done by, yes it was done by geneticists, but they are focused on a specific result. And if fudging the study allows them to gain that result, then they feel perfectly justified in doing so.
"All I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power." - Ashleigh Brilliant
Nature Science Update has a critical take: http://www.nature.com/nsu/030721/030721-14.html
Your reply is bollocks because it is a baseless accusation. If you think the study is wrong then tell us why in your uninformed opinion it is wrong rather than attacking the motivation of the researchers.
The paper was published in Science, one of the world's most prestigious journals, so you can be fairly sure the science it is based on is good.
BTW you should have written 'ensure' rather than 'insure' - look up the difference. Also I do not believe that the current treaties specify when hunting may resume.
Great. This probably limits my chance of being able to eat whale, unless maybe I go to Japan where they've been conducting whale research for years. Then I can add my data point for the "Just how tasty is whale?" study.
Or maybe Norway; I think they are collaborating on the work.
Who said I modded you down? Don't you even know that you can't mod and post in the same discussion? I don't even have modpoints today!
Why would I feel threatened? Actually, I made the comment as a kind of in-joke for Futurama fans.
I suffer from attention surplus disorder.
It is not a baseless accusation. If you had bothered to even read through the rest of this thread instead of foaming at the mouth, you would seen at least one link from a reputable source that argued scientifically with the premise of the conclusion. Even the publisher of the study says that his results are "complicated and error-prone."
http://www.nature.com/nsu/030721/030721-14.html (Originally listed below.)
And the International Whaling Commission (based on the signed treaties) forbids whaling until whale populations returns to 54% of the original population.
The only thing you had right was my grammar error. The rest of your post was "bollocks." Good job.
"All I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power." - Ashleigh Brilliant
Me bad then. I never was a fan of Futurama. I didn't get the reference.
"All I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power." - Ashleigh Brilliant
Why, in this day-in-age, would whale hunting be useful? What can be produced from a dead whale that doesn't have a better alternative in-use already? My limited knowledge of the history of whaling tells me the most important product was whale oil. It's really hard to believe that other forms of oil are more expensive to produce than what it must cost to hunt whales. The hide, perhaps?
As far as the study goes, it is easy to have suspicions about the motives of the researchers. If the motive is to determine long-ago whale populations so that someone can either justify or prevent future whaling, a study coming from university is likely to be shifted toward the latter. In this case it's Stanford and one of the main researchers (Prof. Palumbi) is a "protected marine reserves" advocate.
If this is junk science I don't really care if it prevents whaling; I'm fairly certain the world will survive without the practice. But extrapolating the history of species through genetic analysis is a young field and it would suck to have it be generally discounted before we see what is possible. The moment the political class decides that the results of research might actually matter politically, the who-what-when-where-why of research gets politicized too.
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
you would [have] seen at least one link from a reputable source that argued scientifically with the premise of the conclusion ...which is a hell of a long way from saying that the study was fudged, or that the scientists involved are liars, which is what you claimed. And then you whined like a little baby when your post was rightly modded as flamebait. Even if the study is only partially correct the science is clearly going to be plausible or it would not have passed the peer review process and got accepted by Science.
The disagreement I assume you are referring to was constructive and had a logical basis, unlike your vindictive and entirely useless "contribution" to the debate. Is it enjoyable being the turd floating in the gene pool?
You tell me. The stench is coming from your direction, Mr. Anal About Language.
"All I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power." - Ashleigh Brilliant
I had some whalemeat in Pusan. It tasted like beef, but with a fishy overtone. I enjoyed it a lot.
The meat is actually quite lean, I would say a bit leaner than beef, but not as lean as pork.
If I could buy whale meat at the local grocery store, I would. I enjoy seafood, and I love beef.
The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
Because the whales on American beaches don't count!
Vote in November. You won't regret it.
Once the government agency catches and dissects a whale for this supposed research, it sells the whale meat to select restaraunts. The meat is expensive and garners a hefty profit.
Here is another example of why human overpopulation is a problem. We simply cannot allow a free-for-all to hunt whales for food. Whales are far less numerous than many varieties of fish and would soon be extinct if people ate enough whale meat to satiate their appetites. Actually, many varieties of fish are on the verge of extinction due to over-trawling.
The outlook for mankind is rather gloomy. Once the Chinese population achieves the same purchasing power as the Western population, many varieties of sea life will simply be eated out of extinction. Unlike the Japanese, the Chinese are far more insistent on their "right" to have what they simply "want". The whales and other marine life are simply no match for 1 billion mouths -- 1 billion selfish mouths.
Dear Nagatzhul,
I am in receipt of your letter from Friday July 25, @07:01PM and, though I am not a mod in this case (I couldn't post a reply here if I were), I am, however, a meta-mod, and I agree with your complaint. So, I have used my mad m2 skillz to un-do the erroneous flamebait moderation that was unduly perpetrated on your post.
Unfortunately, until slashdot inmplements the annoying, but at least honest, "-1: your post makes me consider an uncomfortable reality and therefore makes me nervous enough to mod it down", this sort of thing is sure to continue. I will help when I can.
Sincerely,
M2
everything in moderation
No, publishing in Science doesn't mean that the science is "good", it only means Science editors and peer-reviewers felt that the science was _good_enough_for_now_.
Besides, we're not even looking at a peer-reviewed Science study here, we're looking at an article interpreting the Science study. In other words, this could just be a journalist recopying some anonymous Press Release misquoting and misinterpreting the entire study.
This kind of thing happens frequently enough I don't trust anything I read/see in the Medias.