Live data from Hacker News

Dolphins deserve same rights as humans, say scientists

bbc.co.uk

111–120 of 196 posts

Re: Dolphins deserve same rights as humans, say scientists

#111
post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, we interbred.

Which admittedly does not necessarily suggest any form of mutual recognition. Instances of cultural exchange I think are more suggestive. Perhaps the better question is, if Neanderthals were to somehow come back and enter the modern world, would we accept extending some sort of ethical consideration to them? I think we undoubtedly would. The current deficient of other species that we all accept as special in some way…

> if Neanderthals were to somehow come back and enter the modern world, would we accept extending some sort of ethical consideration to them?

Some people think neanderthals and humans mixed genes.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal_genome_project)

> the project published their results in the May 2010 journal Science detailing an initial draft of the Neanderthal genome based on the analysis of four billion base pairs of Neanderthal DNA. The study determined that some mixture of genes occurred between Neanderthals and anatomically modern humans and presented evidence that elements of their genome remain in that of non-African modern humans.

But some people think this genetic overlap is the result of a common ancestor, and not from interbreeding.

(http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/aug/14/study-doubt-hu...)

We give special consideration to primates - not just because they're rare but because they're close relatives to humans. Vivisection is limited pretty strictly if you're using non-human primates.

Would there be much difference between a chimp and a neanderthal? Neanderthals had the FOXp2 gene, and a hyoid bone, so they might have had language. Hunting is a complex activity, and so there's strong possibility that they needed language.

I guess having a language would be enough to guarantee extra protections?

(Having said all this, modern humans happily butcher each other every day, so who knows what'll happen for dolphins or hypothetical Neanderthals.)

Re: Dolphins deserve same rights as humans, say scientists

#112
post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Western legal systems tend to only recognizes two types of entities, persons and property. Those entities to which personhood is extended have rights, all else does not. We punish those who are cruel to animals, not because we attribute personhood to them, but because of the impact animal cruelty has upon persons collectively (society at large). Criminalization of animal cruelty is no more based on the rights of anim…

> We punish those who are cruel to animals, not because we attribute personhood to them, but because of the impact animal cruelty has upon persons collectively (society at large). Are you sure this is correct? I'm fairly sure cruelty to animals is punished purely because of ethical considerations for the animal's well being.

If this was the case, then we would be as tolerant toward the house cat who plays with the bird before killing it without eating it as we would be toward a human who acted likewise.

The well being of an animal is no better after a slow cruel death than a quick painless one. When well being comes into play we tend to prohibit killing specifically and instrumental uses in general, as is the case with humans.

The free range chicken on your plate is no less dead than one raised under factory conditions which make us feel better about ourselves. Neither has any more being to which degrees of wellness may be applied.

Re: Dolphins deserve same rights as humans, say scientists

#113

>> They believe dolphins and whales are sufficiently intelligent to justify the same ethical considerations as humans. I don't have a problem with extending legal protection to dolphins, but I do think that "intelligence" as the criteria is morally problematic, at least if it's the sole criteria. For instance, could a person with Down's Syndrome be denied protection from murder? The Christian worldview holds that hum…

I always saw this question as one of sentience, not intelligence. Certainly there are computers that exceed human levels of intelligence at certain tasks today, but none are sentient.

The things that I have been thinking a lot about lately are --

What happens when natural death is reduced by 99% and human levels of intelligence are extended to countless genetically customized biological lifeforms?

Do sentient computers that consume non-renewable resources have the right to reproduce and live? Who would enforce either option?

I think we are at the early stages of experiencing a paradigm change in human philosophy. In some part, because much of traditional human beliefs simply hold no foundation with reality (religious and otherwise.) Secondly, the things that were distant science fiction now exist or is within reach. The Star Wars/Star Trek view of the future and space travel mere decades later has become archaic.

I happened to read "The Age of Spiritual Machines" by Ray Kurzweil over a decade ago. It completely changed my thought process in regards to much of life. (I doubt without it I would have been as strongly convicted about dropping out of college and starting an internet business.) As technology has advanced since then, I believe it has kept my thinking a step beyond where it would have been otherwise.

The average person, even equipped with the latest smartphone, is unequipped to deal with these radical changes. Children can no longer look to their parents for patterns on how to live their lives, because their parents lives will not remotely resemble their own.

These are very good opportunities for start ups.

Re: Dolphins deserve same rights as humans, say scientists

#114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your opinion is correct but don't drag Christianity here. Christianity did enough violence on the name of non-violent Jesus. Better you talk of universal human values.

>> Your opinion is correct but don't drag Christianity here. Christianity did enough violence on the name of non-violent Jesus. Better you talk of universal human values. I understand your sentiment, but 1) you're making an "ad hominem" against Christianity, which I could argue is not justified but in any case is not pertinent, and 2) what you're asking ultimately doesn't make sense. We're having a discussion about w…

I don't classify my views as religious, although I do classify mine as moral.

Existence doesn't have a purpose. Existence simply "is". Purpose (in general) is the goals of pre-planned actions taken by intelligent agents acting to achieve specific ends through whatever agencies they believe themselves to control.

My answer to what is moral is to undertake actions that work to achieve those ends, as opposed to random junk and hoping for the best. Moral is to think, not accept dogma. For me, that is the exact opposite of religion.

Re: Dolphins deserve same rights as humans, say scientists

#115
post #111
post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which admittedly does not necessarily suggest any form of mutual recognition. Instances of cultural exchange I think are more suggestive. Perhaps the better question is, if Neanderthals were to somehow come back and enter the modern world, would we accept extending some sort of ethical consideration to them? I think we undoubtedly would. The current deficient of other species that we all accept as special in some way…

> if Neanderthals were to somehow come back and enter the modern world, would we accept extending some sort of ethical consideration to them? Some people think neanderthals and humans mixed genes. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal_genome_project ) > the project published their results in the May 2010 journal Science detailing an initial draft of the Neanderthal genome based on the analysis of four billion ba…

This is all true.

Carve out a new nation of only Neanderthal, and I suspect we will go at it like we were making up for old time. Pop a few Neanderthal down in the middle of London, raising the first few to be familiar with human civilization (to the extent that this may be possible), and I would be a bit more optimistic about the outcome.

How we treat others seems to have a lot more to do with context than merit.

Re: Dolphins deserve same rights as humans, say scientists

#116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your opinion is correct but don't drag Christianity here. Christianity did enough violence on the name of non-violent Jesus. Better you talk of universal human values.

>> Your opinion is correct but don't drag Christianity here. Christianity did enough violence on the name of non-violent Jesus. Better you talk of universal human values. I understand your sentiment, but 1) you're making an "ad hominem" against Christianity, which I could argue is not justified but in any case is not pertinent, and 2) what you're asking ultimately doesn't make sense. We're having a discussion about w…

I agree that religion has a place in this debate, but I don't think morality is inherently about religion. I'm not religious, but I do consider myself moral.

I don't know precisely where we get morals from without religion. Clearly it can't be as simple as what the majority prefers: the phrase the tyranny of the majority refers to the problem with that.

We have a deep seated sense of fairness, even without religion. A recent experiment put two monkeys within sight of each other. One did a task and was given a piece of food, then the other did the same task and got a much tastier piece of food. The first does the task again, and again gets the low-value food, but this time he threw it back at the experimenter and beat the bars of the cage, trying to reach the high-value food. That sense seems likely to be where our concept of morality comes from.

Re: Dolphins deserve same rights as humans, say scientists

#117
post #85
post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When cetaceans let us know that they will mutually honor some sort of Interspecies Protective Treaty, I will be the first in line to support the move that they should have similar protections to people. Until then, I don't want to see such beautiful intelligent creatures harmed -- but murder/manslaughter charges would be inappropriate if one were inadvertently killed. The current animal protection/endangered species…

There is a implied statement that cetaceans would somehow need to learn English to receive similar protections as people. This is of course a really bad requirement. A lot of people in the world do not know English, and would thus be unable to let anyone know that they will mutually honor some sort of Interspecies Protective Treaty. Mostly, they would be unable to read any such treaty, or reply with the word "yes". F…

There is a implied statement that cetaceans would somehow need to learn English to receive similar protections as people.

English? Where did I say that?

However, communication verbal or nonverbal that conveys agreement to participate in a society is a requirement.

This kind of communication would need to happen either individually or representatives cetaceans would need to come forward who could vouch for others of their species. From there, we'd need to observe whether or not the agreement(s) were being followed. This starts to sound silly, doesn't it? But that's what being a member of a society entails. That's what being "human" or reasonably equivalent to oen entails.

Re: Dolphins deserve same rights as humans, say scientists

#118
It always seemed to me that our lack of consideration for these animals as "non-human persons" only serves to demonstrate a failure of empathy on our part, solely because we are unable to communicate with them. We don't know whether dolphins have a formal language yet, but we do know they can communicate with each other, and if we ever figure out a way to communicate with them too it'd probably go a long way to convincing people that they deserve rights.

It's the height of arrogance to assume the humans are the only species on this planet that deserve these rights. And it's not helped by animal rights organisations, that preach that all animals deserve equal rights to humans, which is an absurdity that doesn't help their cause, since it drives more reasonable people away from the idea that some animals really do deserve these rights.

Re: Dolphins deserve same rights as humans, say scientists

#119

    Man has always assumed that he was more intelligent than
    dolphins because he had achieved so much... the wheel, 
    New York, wars and so on... while all the dolphins had
    ever done was muck about in the water having a good time.
    But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that
    they were far more intelligent than man... for precisely
    the same reason.

Re: Dolphins deserve same rights as humans, say scientists

#120
post #27

I'm very comfortable with this in the general case; I feel guilty eating bacon because pigs seem pretty smart. Still, rights always come paired up with responsibilities. Do we then try dolphins for rape or murder? Rather than saying certain categories of animals should have the same rights as humans, maybe we'd be better off saying certain categories of animals deserve a higher level of ethical and legal consideratio…

Western legal systems tend to only recognizes two types of entities, persons and property. Those entities to which personhood is extended have rights, all else does not. We punish those who are cruel to animals, not because we attribute personhood to them, but because of the impact animal cruelty has upon persons collectively (society at large). Criminalization of animal cruelty is no more based on the rights of anim…

I would just focus a little more on the notion that cruelty to animals is usually a clear indicator of a lack of empathy, which is dangerous to the rest of society when persistently manifest in individuals.

It isn't the general presence of animal suffering in the world that is a problem, it is the intentional infliction of suffering that is the problem, because it means the one doing the infliction is skirting close to the outer edge of empathy.

Post reply on HN