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

111–120 of 146 posts

Re: Why killer whales should not be kept in captivity

#111

Post by sosborn »

azakai wrote: post #102
cookiecaper wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

I disagree. I think we do have ways to think about what future generations will judge us harshly about. 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…

> More and more people care about cruelty-free farming, as well as are becoming vegetarians or vegans.

Are there any reliable stats for this that also take into account what it likely to be increased meat consumption in places like China and other developing countries?

Re: Why killer whales should not be kept in captivity

#112

Post by cookiecaper »

sxcurry wrote: post #81
cookiecaper wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Animal captivity is a net good - except for the animals. If you believe, as many people do, that all animals should have the same basic rights, then captivity is shameful. In the future, human animals will look back with revulsion at the way we currently treat other animals.

>If you believe, as many people do, that all animals should have the same basic rights

I don't believe this, and I don't believe any reasonable value for "many people" do either. Most people are not vegetarians or vegans. Most people do not hate zoos. Most people do not hate farms. Most people do not take offense at the keeping of pets.

Captivity is a great example of human ingenuity and dominance. It's good for everyone, including many of the animals that are kept captive.

>In the future, human animals will look back with revulsion at the way we currently treat other animals.

I totally disagree. Humans have not yet developed this type of serious revulsion on a macro scale, even though animals have been kept captive for thousands of years and across all human cultures.

If you want to say some of the extremes of captivity are inhumane, then great, you'll get no argument from me there. But I fundamentally disagree with anyone who believes that captivity as a whole is improper.

Re: Why killer whales should not be kept in captivity

#113

Post by cookiecaper »

azakai wrote: post #102
cookiecaper wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

I disagree. I think we do have ways to think about what future generations will judge us harshly about. 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…

>But when you get down to matters of morality and ethics, I believe we do see a clear progression over time.

"Morality" and "ethics" do not have clear objective definitions, nor do they exist on a straight continuum. Most practical applications of morality and ethics are complex and involve a substantial portion of grey area. Morality and ethics change based on the perspective of the culture; they change based on time and place. This should show that, barring a few simple cases, they are not objective verities.

However, most humans do end up falling back to the same social structure and basic social codes. They do, after a few generations, admit defeat and openly reject what many a century prior had considered the society's moral manifest destiny. It is true that over time, numerous cultures and societies have attempted to modify these basic structural arrangements, but invariably these entities dissolve and humanity as a whole continues in a manner that is quite similar to how it has always continued.

When you're discussing how future generations will perceive things, it is best to do it with a historical perspective that considers more than a single place and more than 100 years of history. I believe that if one does this, the likelihood that any specific social agenda that's not the basic one dictated by the fundamentals of human biology and sociology (the universal rules around pairing, mating, and raising children) will be accepted as self-evident truth becomes quite remote.

>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.

There's a big difference between opposing the extreme tactics of factory farms and opposing animal captivity in general. Blackfish's producers and supporters oppose captivity in general, and are trying to generate outrage with the orca as their first test case.

Re: Why killer whales should not be kept in captivity

#114

Post by azakai »

cookiecaper wrote: post #113
azakai wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. I think we do have ways to think about what future generations will judge us harshly about. 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…

>But when you get down to matters of morality and ethics, I believe we do see a clear progression over time. "Morality" and "ethics" do not have clear objective definitions, nor do they exist on a straight continuum. Most practical applications of morality and ethics are complex and involve a substantial portion of grey area. Morality and ethics change based on the perspective of the culture; they change based on tim…

I don't understand the cyclic argument you mention. Can you give some examples of it?

Re: Why killer whales should not be kept in captivity

#115

Post by azakai »

sosborn wrote: post #111
azakai wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. I think we do have ways to think about what future generations will judge us harshly about. 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…

> More and more people care about cruelty-free farming, as well as are becoming vegetarians or vegans. Are there any reliable stats for this that also take into account what it likely to be increased meat consumption in places like China and other developing countries?

I was talking about countries I'm familiar with, like the US. I'm not sure about the situation in China.

Re: Why killer whales should not be kept in captivity

#116

Post by dang »

noondip wrote: post #73

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 slaughterhouse…

We've banned this account for repeatedly violating the HN guidelines.

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11269620 and marked it off-topic.

Re: Why killer whales should not be kept in captivity

#117

Post by [deleted] »

DanBC wrote: post #96
funkyy wrote: post #35

Earlier 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.

[deleted]

Re: Why killer whales should not be kept in captivity

#118

Post by Fomite »

darklajid wrote: post #67
Fomite wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 lang…

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

The article might be appealing to people, but that doesn't really matter - what I meant from beyond "people" was that orcas don't kill people, but that doesn't make them not exceedingly good predators. Killer Whale meaning "Whale that is really, really, really good at killing things" seems entirely apt.

Also, "also known as..." is just an easy way to make sure people who don't know what "Orca" meant now do.

Re: Why killer whales should not be kept in captivity

#119

Post by junto »

If SeaWorld really believed that they needed to capture these animals in order to study them up close in captivity then they wouldn't need to commercialise the study into some Disney-esque circus. Even in zoos animals aren't force to learn tricks to impress the posting visitors. SeaWorld is a travesty.

Or they could just be honest, and about that they are just a Disney-Sea-Circus and the science is just an excuse to keep the dollars rolling in.

No more of these animals should be born into captivity, and if possible, we should at least try to release as many of them as possible back into the wild, possibly as their own pod.

Post reply on HN