Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why killer whales should not be kept in captivity

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 146 posts

Re: Why killer whales should not be kept in captivity

#61

Post by cookiecaper »

azakai wrote: post #42
cphoover wrote: post #24

I agree that killer whale's shouldn't be kept in captivity, but than on the other hand, I also love me some bacon. Pigs are also sentient creatures with high intelligence yet we see them as a food source, and thus don't really care about their conditions in captivity.

But we should. Future generations will judge us very poorly on this.

>Future generations will judge us very poorly on this.

Generally, I find such speculative statements worthless. It's another way to say "I really think this should be obvious and that my idea will eventually be widely accepted to be correct". That's all well and good, but everyone thinks that about their own thoughts. It really doesn't contribute anything to the argument; it's an attempt to shame your opponent into agreeing with you by invoking his future childrens' potential disdain.

I also think that if you really want to know what future generations will think of something, you should refer to what prior generations thought of it. By this standard, future generations are likely to taunt us mercilessly for caring so much about what we imagine to be a whale's internal monologue.

Re: Why killer whales should not be kept in captivity

#63

Post by Fomite »

darklajid wrote: post #27

My wife keeps hitting me when I (intentionally, to mess with her) call these creatures 'killer whales'. The name doesn't help, really. The subtitle is 'Keeping orcas in aquariums deprives them of crucial aspects of their lives, and in some cases it can even prove dangerous to humans'. BBC seems to know what these creatures are called, but prefers to use 'killer whales' in the title. Why? That's messed up, both in gen…

Except from any perspective other than "People", Killer Whale is a pretty apt title. They are terrifyingly effective predators.

Re: Why killer whales should not be kept in captivity

#64

Post by dsp1234 »

akavi wrote: post #50
darklajid wrote: post #27

My wife keeps hitting me when I (intentionally, to mess with her) call these creatures 'killer whales'. The name doesn't help, really. The subtitle is 'Keeping orcas in aquariums deprives them of crucial aspects of their lives, and in some cases it can even prove dangerous to humans'. BBC seems to know what these creatures are called, but prefers to use 'killer whales' in the title. Why? That's messed up, both in gen…

> BBC seems to know what these creatures are called Yes, they're called both "orcas" and "killer whales", with the latter being more common. And on that note, do people really parse "killer whales" as "whales that kill (people?)". I'm pretty sure I don't; my brain treats the phrase as an opaque semantic unit meaning "those giant, black and white dolphins".

Quick poll of those around me:

Are orcas called 'killer whales' because the kill people?

yes - 3

no - 2

Re: Why killer whales should not be kept in captivity

#65

Post by sschueller »

"There are currently (December 2015) a total of 56 orcas held in captivity (23 wild-captured plus 33 captive-born) in at least 12 marine parks in 8 different countries." [1]

"SeaWorld holds 23 orcas in its three parks in the United States and owns (at least) a further four at Loro Parque in Spain (ownership of Adan and Morgan not verified). At least forty-five orcas have died at SeaWorld." [1]

[1] http://uk.whales.org/wdc-in-action/fate-of-captive-orcas

Re: Why killer whales should not be kept in captivity

#66

Post by maxxxxx »

funkyy wrote: post #39
cphoover wrote: post #24

I agree that killer whale's shouldn't be kept in captivity, but than on the other hand, I also love me some bacon. Pigs are also sentient creatures with high intelligence yet we see them as a food source, and thus don't really care about their conditions in captivity.

Pigs are meant to be kept as farm animals. They were selectively domesticated. Same with chickens, sheep, cows etc. Problem with Orcas is that they are not use to live in captivity. They were just caught in the sea and forced to do tricks. Its same with large wild cats - they have been not selectively chosen over decades to join the human society.

Pigs are not used to the conditions they have to live under in factory farms. Their life is pure hell from birth to death.

It's not like dogs who have evolved to live with humans and are generally treated well.

Re: Why killer whales should not be kept in captivity

#67

Post by darklajid »

Fomite wrote: post #63
darklajid wrote: post #27

My wife keeps hitting me when I (intentionally, to mess with her) call these creatures 'killer whales'. The name doesn't help, really. The subtitle is 'Keeping orcas in aquariums deprives them of crucial aspects of their lives, and in some cases it can even prove dangerous to humans'. BBC seems to know what these creatures are called, but prefers to use 'killer whales' in the title. Why? That's messed up, both in gen…

Except from any perspective other than "People", Killer Whale is a pretty apt title. They are terrifyingly effective predators.

But isn't the article trying to appeal to people?

And here's the bigger problem I (well, I stated it over and over again: This was kinda introduced to me rather recently) have: As a non-native speaker of English 'to kill' is neutral. A fox kills a hen. 'killer' is immediately associated with ethical and moral values, feels much closer to murderer.

Actually .. I have trouble translating 'killer' back to my native language, German. 'Mörder' would be murderer, 'Jäger' is hunter - it might be that I'm just tired, but I cannot come up with something that might match 'killer' without either making the animal sound human and vicious (murderer) or diluting the whole term (hunter).

Native English speakers: Is 'killer' something you read and understand as 'predator in nature'? Do you feel that this name comes with emotional baggage?

Re: Why killer whales should not be kept in captivity

#68

Post by jqm »

kefka wrote: post #32
Joof wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a question where its extroidinarily hard to draw the line. Assuming it is immoral to consume another life form, then there goes 100% of our food source (plants are life and show some intelligence in aggregate). If nothing can consume anything else then life can't exist. I'd argue that their ethical standards are wholly separate from our own. For humans, self-preservation as a race is very important.

Not only that, but plants respond to stimuli, remember, chemically 'moan' when sick, scream when they are being harmed or killed (grass cutting), and talk amongst each other (again, chemical triggers). If you don't eat living things, that leaves milk and honey. I'm not saying "become X-ist". I'm saying that in order for us to live, others must die. Plants, animals and others aren't inherently worth more or less than…

And fruit. It leaves fruit also. Fruit is produced to be consumed and doesn't take life in consumption.

Re: Why killer whales should not be kept in captivity

#69

Post by cookiecaper »

dpflan wrote: post #5

Blackfish is definitely a provocative documentary on this topic of killer whale captivity.

Blackfish provoked me, but not in the expected manner.

I was actually impressed that over 4 decades of orca captivity, they could only identify a small number of violent incidents, and while it's sad that these incidents occurred, it seems like a known occupational hazard whenever dealing with large animals. They tried to make it out like the small group of trainers that had been injured or killed over the years had no way of knowing that their job was potentially dangerous, which is, of course, patently ridiculous.

I didn't see any substantive argument in Blackfish. I don't think they made the case that orcas are a special, elevated form of animal intelligence that is too sensitive to be kept in captivity; they mostly just recounted a list of some bad things that have happened over the history of orca captivity, but I don't see how that's supposed to be representative. All serious endeavors will have mishaps.

I believe Blackfish's producers are trying to lay the baseline for a larger anti-animal-captivity platform in general, and I can't get on board with that. I think that animal captivity is a net good; it allows us to learn about the animals, increases the passion humans have for nature (meaning they'll be less likely to destroy it recklessly), and provides the basic components needed for many important scientific studies.

I think most zoologists keep animals because they genuinely care about them and care about educating the public on how to live peacefully and cooperatively with them. Hiding something away in a corner is not an effective way to engender wonder or interest in it, and that means it's far too easy for some uncharitable business interest to destroy in the name of profit.

Really in some sense SeaWorld is a victim of its own success. They successfully took the daunting specter of the killer whale and made him so cuddly and kid-friendly that this is the animal people are most receptive to believing is actually so super special, caring, smart, and sweet that it doesn't deserve to live in a container.

Re: Why killer whales should not be kept in captivity

#70

Post by fnovd »

kefka wrote: post #32
Joof wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a question where its extroidinarily hard to draw the line. Assuming it is immoral to consume another life form, then there goes 100% of our food source (plants are life and show some intelligence in aggregate). If nothing can consume anything else then life can't exist. I'd argue that their ethical standards are wholly separate from our own. For humans, self-preservation as a race is very important.

Not only that, but plants respond to stimuli, remember, chemically 'moan' when sick, scream when they are being harmed or killed (grass cutting), and talk amongst each other (again, chemical triggers). If you don't eat living things, that leaves milk and honey. I'm not saying "become X-ist". I'm saying that in order for us to live, others must die. Plants, animals and others aren't inherently worth more or less than…

By that logic, computers are alive. They let you know when they are 'sick' (they crash), scream when being overworked (loud fans), and talk amongst each other (the internet).

Failing to draw a line between two things doesn't mean that they are the same. Plants do not possess a nervous system capable of metacognition. Killing and eating a plant is not the same thing as killing and eating a mammal, bird, or fish.

Post reply on HN