Winnie the Pooh and Moby Dick: A Reflection on Bears and Whaling

1. Introduction: Bears, Whaling, and the Need for Rational Debate

In recent years, bear-related incidents have been increasing in Japan’s Tohoku region and Hokkaido, with six lives lost this year alone. Bears have an extraordinary memory, repeatedly returning to a discovered food source. Unfortunately, when bears encroach on human-inhabited areas, culling is often necessary to prevent accidents.

Meanwhile, some animal welfare organizations advocate for “coexistence with bears.” To them, bears may appear as lovable creatures, like “Winnie the Pooh.” However, real bears are vastly different—they can run as fast as cars and deliver fatal blows with their sharp claws. Would you feel confident keeping such an animal in your home? Or waking up to find a bear in your backyard and carrying on with your day?

Given this reality, isn’t it time we engage in a calm and rational discussion about what coexistence truly means?

The issue of bears shares parallels with the debate on whaling. Both discussions are often dominated by emotional appeals to animal protection, yet they tend to ignore scientific data, local realities, and historical context, making these debates even more complex.

2. Whaling: Cultural, Economic, and Scientific Perspectives

Japan’s stance on whaling is rooted in sustainability, cultural diversity, and the need for international cooperation. However, the issue goes beyond policy, encompassing the cultural, historical, and economic importance of whaling and how Japan communicates this to the world.

Whaling is deeply intertwined with Japan’s cultural heritage. Across the country, whales have been treated not merely as resources but as sacred beings. Evidence of this includes whale memorials and shrines dedicated to them, which show that the Japanese did not exploit whales unilaterally. At times, whales were seen as friends, and at other times, as deities—relationships that transcend a simplistic narrative of exploitation.

For instance, the legendary sumo wrestler Ikitsuki Gentazaemon, renowned for his immense size, bore a name meaning “as large as a whale.” Though his strength was celebrated, his penchant for indulgence in other pleasures raises questions about his character—but that’s another story!

Economically, whaling plays a vital role in sustaining regional communities and industries. In certain regions, whale cuisine remains deeply rooted in tradition. Festivals celebrating whales also exist. Furthermore, scientific studies confirm that Japan’s whaling targets species with sufficient populations to ensure sustainability. However, extremist groups often cherry-pick footage, framing whaling as akin to Indigenous genocide to incite outrage. These tactics may help garner supporters and funding, but don’t they feel inherently deceitful?

Japan also faces the challenge of enhancing transparency. Efforts to clearly explain how whale meat is managed and where it is consumed could deepen international understanding. For example, in 2023, Japan reported catching around 300 whales (a number overshadowed by Norway’s 580). Sharing Japan’s historical relationship with whales could also help dismantle reductive labels like “exploitation.”

3. The Role and Limits of Emotional Arguments

Slogans like “Don’t kill bears” and “Save the whales” are powerful tools for raising awareness about animal welfare and environmental protection. They inspire action and spark necessary debates.

However, unless these emotions are tied to scientific facts and local realities, they fail to resolve the underlying issues. For instance, while the desire to protect bears is understandable, ignoring the reality of bears encroaching on human habitats prevents the development of viable coexistence strategies. Bears’ behaviors often reflect environmental changes, human intrusion, or food shortages—problems that emotional rhetoric alone cannot address.

Similarly, in the whaling debate, idealized slogans depicting whales as guardians of nature often clash with Japan’s cultural and scientific perspectives. Bridging this gap requires acknowledging the value of emotions while maintaining a balanced, evidence-based approach.

4. Ethical Contradictions and Double Standards

A glaring issue in these debates is the selective ethical treatment of certain animals. For example, the argument that “whales are special and should not be killed” raises the question: are cows or pigs not special? Pigs, after all, are said to have intelligence comparable to dogs. How do we reconcile such contradictions?

Even Buddhism and Jainism, which emphasize non-violence, advocate for “avoiding harm as much as possible” rather than absolute non-violence. Human life relies on the sacrifices of microorganisms, plants, and animals alike. Recognizing this interdependence is crucial when considering the ethical implications of whaling and bear management.

Additionally, the critique of whaling often reflects Western-centric double standards. Practices such as cattle farming, bullfighting, or large-scale hunting rarely receive the same level of scrutiny. This imbalance suggests an implicit assumption of Western norms as universal, which demands closer examination.

5. Toward Constructive Solutions

The path to resolution lies in fostering dialogue that respects cultural diversity while integrating science, emotion, and ethics. Japan should present its stance not merely as a defense of tradition but as a counter-cultural perspective contributing to global discussions on sustainability and coexistence.

Balancing emotions is equally essential. The desire to “protect bears,” the necessity to “cull bears,” the aim to “save whales,” and the practice of “whaling” all hold validity. These contradictions should not be dismissed but rather serve as starting points for solutions that harmonize conservation with management.

Moreover, the question should shift from “What forms of killing are acceptable?” to “What forms of non-violence are achievable?” Prioritizing ecological balance and exploring ways for humans and animals to coexist sustainably is critical.

6. Conclusion: Balancing Ethics and Reality

The debates on bears and whales are not mere emotional clashes or abstract ideals. They require multifaceted discussions that integrate scientific data, cultural context, and ethical considerations. Recognizing that all human life depends on the sacrifice of other lives can help dispel the illusion of moral purity, paving the way for realistic, balanced solutions.

By rejecting biases that label certain animals as “special” and avoiding the imposition of Western-centric values as universal truths, we can foster mutual understanding and uncover more inclusive and sustainable solutions.