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

71–80 of 146 posts

Re: Why killer whales should not be kept in captivity

#71

Post by noondip »

scoofy wrote: post #30
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.

So, there is animal rights, and animal welfare. I think one of the main problems for orcas is size. Creating an appropriately sized habitat for them would be a gargantuan endeavor, however, if we could, i think a lot of us would be less vehemently opposed to keeping them in captivity. For pigs, this is entirely plausible. While i'm also very opposed to our current factory farming practices, since i'm fairly nihilisti…

How would you feel if the moment you were born someone else had already planned the day of your execution?

Re: Why killer whales should not be kept in captivity

#73

Post by noondip »

No one is "meant" to be tortured and abused. I find you reply to be morally abhorrent and absolutely disgusting.

Right now, at this very moment, on American highways, there are no less than 5,000 concentration camp trucks. Trucks that we’ve constructed. Inside these trucks there are living, terrified, innocent beings (such as) cows, pigs and chickens. These trucks are being driven to concentration camp slaughterhouses that we’ve carefully constructed all across America. When the trucks arrive, the animals are so frightened they won’t even get off the truck. They’re not stupid. They know what’s next. So people go on the trucks with electric prods and force them to walk down the chutes to their own death. Or if the animals are small enough to manhandle, like chickens, we’ll just grab them off the trucks and toss them inside. Inside, these innocent, living beings are hanged upside down, fully conscious. In other words, they go in alive against their will and come out chopped up into hundreds of pieces. I think this type of behavior is inexcusable and unbecoming of a species that claims to understand right from wrong. The animals have not done one single thing to us to deserve the wrath and the cruelty that we hurl on them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nt4lweBJTQs

Re: Why killer whales should not be kept in captivity

#74

Post by fnovd »

tn13 wrote: post #36

Being one-issue fundamentalist is always a bad thing. A sweeping statement "killer whales should not be ..." does not seem convincing. No one is even trying to put all killer whales in aquarium. Having few of them where humans could watch them is a good thing. Where else would my 5 year old know about these giant creatures, after all he needs to do something for their preservation. Watching wildlife up and close is a…

>Having few of them where humans could watch them is a good thing.

For humans, maybe. How is it good for orcas? Isn't the issue here that we are denying agency from intelligent beings?

Re: Why killer whales should not be kept in captivity

#75

Post by cookiecaper »

carapace wrote: post #2

They are sentient. It is slavery.

Most animals are "sentient" to some degree or another, so I'm not sure what you mean by that. A perception of animal "sentience" doesn't automatically mean it's wrong for humans to employ, enjoy, and/or harvest them.

Re: Why killer whales should not be kept in captivity

#76

Post by fnovd »

NoMoreNicksLeft wrote: post #41
carapace wrote: post #2

They are sentient. It is slavery.

Prove this. Hell, don't worry about proving it. Just define "sentient" in a objective, empirically measurable way.

Define the word "word" without using any words.

Haha! You can't! Therefore, words don't exist.

Re: Why killer whales should not be kept in captivity

#77

Post by noondip »

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…

You are ignorant or dishonest if you think "killing" a plant and animal is in any way equatable.

Edit: Even supposing plants have the ability to suffer and experience pain in the same way non-human animals do, you should be immediately compelled to stop their abuse, for the raising of livestock "injures" and "kills" many, many more plants than if you had just eaten them for sustenance directly.

Have a look at this brief article, which explains and dispells your confused assumption quite well - http://pixellant.com/adaptt/insipid-killing-plants-argument/

Of course, I don't think you're serious; I think you are taking refuge in the plant-killing argument because no other rationalizations are available. That is sad.

Re: Why killer whales should not be kept in captivity

#78

Post by kefka »

fnovd wrote: post #70
kefka wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

A computer I'm reasonably sure isn't alive. But the internet with emergent behaviours, I'm not so sure. But that's a "Ghost in the Shell" style discussion.

> Plants do not possess a nervous system capable of metacognition.

Scientists aren't so sure. And we're only finding out more chemical 'sensors' that allow different sensing of our environment. As for a nervous net, it was thought "No"... But again, more study shows that it's not true.

http://www.pri.org/stories/2014-01-09/new-research-plant-int...

http://www.dw.com/en/when-plants-say-ouch/a-510552-1

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20141111-plants-have-a-hidden...

> Killing and eating a plant is not the same thing as killing and eating a mammal, bird, or fish.

That's just moralizing. There is no basis in which to say that X life is better or worse than Y life.

Re: Why killer whales should not be kept in captivity

#79

Post by darklajid »

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".

So, two things. First of all: Even if 'killer whale' is more common, I don't think that this kind of name is making a good case for a 'pity the social creatures trapped in a cage' article. I'd try to avoid it, if I wanted to make people more aware of the problems outlined in the article.

But - obviously that's a cultural thing as well. I just checked the English Wikipedia and it happily lists Orcas as 'Killer Whales'. The German Wikipedia [1] however calls them 'Orcas' or 'Sword whales' (Schwertwale, translating word by word here) and explicitly says (my crappy translation, original to go and ask Google Translate about is below [2]) "The animals have been referred to as Killer Whales and Murder Whales by Whalers due to their seeminly brutal ways to hunt for prey".

So maybe it's a bit of both? Bad publicity in general with a name like that and using a name that isn't common and generally ~obsolete~ in my home country?

1: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwertwal 2: "Die Namen Killerwal und Mörderwal wurden den Tieren von Walfängern gegeben und nehmen Bezug auf die oft brutal anmutenden Jagdmethoden dieser Raubwale."

Re: Why killer whales should not be kept in captivity

#80

Post by nfg »

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…

Alas Orca has its own connotations, Wikipedia: “Indeed, the genus name Orcinus means "of the kingdom of the dead", or "belonging to Orcus".”
Post reply on HN