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…
You're not wrong. They are killer whales. It's just that they don't (99.9999999999%) kill humans in the wild. They kill sharks and seals all the time which qualifies them as a killer whale.
Why killer whales should not be kept in captivity
101–110 of 146 posts
Re: Why killer whales should not be kept in captivity
#102Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 a…
Obviously some things we can't tell, like what clothes fashions will be in 50 or 100 years. But when you get down to matters of morality and ethics, I believe we do see a clear progression over time. And we can predict it, to some extent. That's the first reason I think we'll be judged harshly here.
A second reason is that we can already see this trend happening. More and more people care about cruelty-free farming, as well as are becoming vegetarians or vegans. Of course, that trend might stop or reverse. But we have reasonable grounds to think it might continue. If it does, then eventually current society will look pretty bad.
A third reason is that this isn't an arbitrary issue that we happen to see a trend on. A lot of people that eat meat realize there is something wrong with things like factory farming. They ignore it, and it's easy to ignore for the most part. But when they think about it, they realize it's immoral. Most people are good in the sense that they do not want to harm other living beings; caring about animal suffering is just a natural outcome of that. In other words, most people don't need to be convinced on the merits of the issue. What most don't yet realize is the huge extent of the problem, and that there are good alternatives.
See also this article for further reasoning along these lines: http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-35667355
Re: Why killer whales should not be kept in captivity
#103Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 sho…
>That's just moralizing. There is no basis in which to say that X life is better or worse than Y life.
Did I say anything about morality? No. Did I say that plant lives were "worse", or animal lives were "better"? No. I said killing a plant was different than killing a mammal. Do you disagree with that assertion?
Re: Why killer whales should not be kept in captivity
#104Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is such a sophomoric approach to ethics it hardly deserves a response. Animals are not humans. They are hardly likely to have the same capacity to suffer. Anthropomorphizing them is not a credible way to talk about the issue. At best they ought to be compared to a severely mentally disabled human. Still deserving of dignity, but hardly treated as equal.
Rather than conjecture, why not educate yourself with free films such as Earthlings (available on YouTube) to learn what the experience of others really is like? Edit: your assumption that animals' capacity to suffer and experience fear, pain and misery is dissimilar to ours is rooted in ignorance. If it's academic proof you're desperately after, a great jumping off point is by reading The Cambridge Declaration on Co…
I was simply objecting to your anthropomorphizing of the way our fellow mammals perceive the world. It's a ludicrous position to take in a serious conversation about ethics. Physical capacity to suffer is one thing, and it's not difficult to argue that mammals suffer similar to the way we do physically, but asking "how I would feel," as though their conscious experience with regards to knowledge of mortality would be similar to ours is speaking nonsense. Furthermore, pointing to an advocacy documentary film to assert a position that even our best academic researchers have little if any way of speaking to seems flippant.
Re: Why killer whales should not be kept in captivity
#105Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're not wrong. They are killer whales. It's just that they don't (99.9999999999%) kill humans in the wild. They kill sharks and seals all the time which qualifies them as a killer whale.
Yeah. I'd always assumed "killer" in killer whale was a recognition they eat fish and mammals instead of krill.
a) They're not whales, really
b) If you see them as Dolphins, why aren't those all 'Killer whales'?
c) A number of real whales kill big stuff. Sperm whales are the prime example. I mean, they fight, kill and eat Giant Squid. Can you be more badass, aren't they 'killers' on a different scale?
Re: Why killer whales should not be kept in captivity
#106Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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?
As a species it very good thing as it provides awareness of them and lets the public learn about them and want to protect the species as individual animal it kinda sucks.
Re: Why killer whales should not be kept in captivity
#107Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah. I'd always assumed "killer" in killer whale was a recognition they eat fish and mammals instead of krill.
Erm.. There are a couple of issues I have with that. a) They're not whales, really b) If you see them as Dolphins, why aren't those all 'Killer whales'? c) A number of real whales kill big stuff. Sperm whales are the prime example. I mean, they fight, kill and eat Giant Squid. Can you be more badass, aren't they 'killers' on a different scale?
b) Dolphins just eat fish, don't they? Anyway, I think any aquatic animal that will beach itself to eat a seal should get a good name.
c) Yeah, I'd be upset if the people who named me did so because they mistakenly thought I had sperm in my head.
Re: Why killer whales should not be kept in captivity
#108Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
#109Earlier quoted context omitted.
The smallest finger - hopefully its the one in your foot ;) But to be serious, I wonder if cutting yourself would be enough for them to taste you and go away or if it would have opposite effect.
If you're ever in a situation where you get a choice of which finger to lose don't chose your little finger. You want to keep your index (or first) finger, and your little (or forth) finger, and you probably want to keep your ring (or third) finger. A bunch of stuff becomes much harder if you don't have a little finger.
Re: Why killer whales should not be kept in captivity
#110Earlier quoted context omitted.
Erm.. There are a couple of issues I have with that. a) They're not whales, really b) If you see them as Dolphins, why aren't those all 'Killer whales'? c) A number of real whales kill big stuff. Sperm whales are the prime example. I mean, they fight, kill and eat Giant Squid. Can you be more badass, aren't they 'killers' on a different scale?
a) The wiki page says they (along with dolphins) are "toothed whales". Wouldn't that make them whales? b) Dolphins just eat fish, don't they? Anyway, I think any aquatic animal that will beach itself to eat a seal should get a good name. c) Yeah, I'd be upset if the people who named me did so because they mistakenly thought I had sperm in my head.
b) Both the original article and Wikipedia mention that Orcas vary quite a lot and are even considered different subspecies or species, depending on the person you talk to. Wikipedia (section 'Types') lists 'Residents'. They eat fish.. No seals are involved. They're "killers" (if we're looking at the targets they hunt) like .. dolphins. Or Tuna, really (eating fish and squid as well). Killer Tuna?