Why killer whales should not be kept in captivity • Hacker News Board

Re: Why killer whales should not be kept in captivity

#141

Post by ProAm » Sun, Mar 13, 2016, 4:32 AM UTC

cookiecaper wrote: post #135

ProAm wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's different for animals that naturally migrate hundreds of thousands of miles a year and forcing them to live in a few thousand cubic meters of water.

Why? Can't they swim hundreds of miles within their enclosures, just as humans can walk hundreds of miles on the treadmill? Is the primary complaint that the orca won't be able to enjoy the scenery of the open ocean, and thus, will no longer find joy in its "migration"? This is the main reason some humans prefer to run outdoors instead of in the gym on the treadmill.

If a treadmill was a humans only existence your argument would be valid.

Re: Why killer whales should not be kept in captivity

#142

Post by scoofy » Sun, Mar 13, 2016, 9:25 AM UTC

asciimo wrote: post #139

scoofy wrote: post #86

Earlier 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.

> At best they ought to be compared to a severely mentally disabled human. Still deserving of dignity, but hardly treated as equal. Is it OK to eat severely mentally disabled humans, if we do so "humanely?"

Obviously not

Re: Why killer whales should not be kept in captivity

#143

Post by Synaesthesia » Sun, Mar 13, 2016, 11:15 AM UTC

logfromblammo wrote: post #137

Synaesthesia wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's correct, in fact livestock farms are worse than most concentration camps.

Except that their purpose is not human genocide . If you do indeed believe that battery farming of livestock for meat production is worse than human genocide , we cannot have a rational conversation about ethics or animal rights, as we do not agree on the necessary foundation premises.

We must differentiate between concentration camps and death camps. Concentration camps are just large prisons, death camps are for genocide. Also, food farms are for animal genocide.

Re: Why killer whales should not be kept in captivity

#144

Post by NoMoreNicksLeft » Mon, Mar 14, 2016, 3:04 PM UTC

fnovd wrote: post #76

NoMoreNicksLeft wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is fallacious, not a real answer.

I didn't disallow you to use words to define it.

Re: Why killer whales should not be kept in captivity

#145

Post by DamnYuppie » Mon, Mar 14, 2016, 8:51 PM UTC

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #125

DamnYuppie wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same with most sharks. They have to bite you to know what you are, most shark attacks are quick strikes and then they let the victim go.

Is that different to how such sharks usually hunt larger prey? I could imagine it being a good technique, bite retreat and wait for the prey to weaken/die; rather than having a thrashing, struggling creature next to your head.

They generally don't let go if it is prey.

Re: Why killer whales should not be kept in captivity

#146

Post by Joof » Thu, Mar 17, 2016, 6:04 AM UTC

fnovd wrote: post #103

kefka wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

None of your links touch on metacognition. Scientists are very sure that individual plants do not have metacognition. Sensing and communicating are not metacognition. >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 differen…

Define metacognition for me. I wouldn't be surprised if a forest (an organism composed of many trees and such) had a way to store memories for example. Ants have several forms of external memory assuming the colony is a single organism. Its harder to say if a forest or an anthill can reason about itself in part because we don't really understand how cognition works.

Edit: Killing a plant might be more similar to killing off chunks of an organism's brain cells. As such it may be ethical to kill individual plants assuming we maintain the integrity of any existing colonies.